[kennend3]

> Instead, she spent 2+ years returning every since book she purchased for her Kindle, well over 100, when she realized she could buy a book and immediately return it, but turn off the Kindle internet connection while she finished reading it, before it was removed. They banned her from ever doing another Kindle return but she otherwise uses her Kindle normally.

Out of curiosity what goes through someones mind to think this is remotely acceptable?

Obviously by sharing this with you she sees nothing wrong/feels no remorse for what she does?

Blatant theft like this costs everyone money, why not just go to the library or something?

[sneak]

> Out of curiosity what goes through someones mind to think this is remotely acceptable?

Copying data is not theft.

[kennend3]

They did not "copy data". they purchased something, returned it for a refund and then kept it by turning off the kindle's wifi.

This clearly is retail fraud.

[blagie]

Lots of things are fraud. Most of them are not theft.

The greatest ThinkSpeak the media industry pulled was to redefine copyright, contract, and license violations as "theft" and "piracy."

Saying something is not theft/harassment/abuse/murder/etc. isn't the same as saying it's okay. Precise language matters.

It's not possible for someone to steal my chair or my wallet without harming me. Actual theft usually is not a victimless crime, by definition. In contrast, most of the people I've seen engage in copyright violation are too poor to buy what they're copying. Virtually everyone I know starts paying when they get real jobs. How do I feel about a broke high school student breaking my license? It's complicated, but much less bad than about someone stealing my phone.

[sneak]

They didn’t purchase anything; the EULA says so plainly.