The portrait of Randy Cohen that accompanies his "Ethicist" column in the New York Times: Maybe it's a good thing for him that they hide his face

Dear Mr. Cohen,

I have to write to tell you that I, along with many, many others, did not enjoy your “The Ethicist” column in the New York Times this past weekend.  In fact, it made my blood boil. Why, you ask, did I have such an averse reaction? I think you know.  For starters, I don’t think that Ms. Bragin’s letter on her concerns about what other people do while they are traveling for business are really worthy of print space, or an answer from you (although I might have privately responded to her that she should just mind her own business).  But I really took offense at your response to C.D.’s “dilemma” over downloading illegal e-books.

As many others have pointed out since Sunday morning, buying a book does not give you license to the use of that material.  It simply makes you the owner of a beautiful hardcover that you can add to your shelves and read for a lifetime, whether or not your Kindle is charged.  The comparisons have been made: subscribing to the New York Times does not make you able to snatch a free copy from the newsstand; seeing a movie in theaters does not entitle you to a free download on your home computer.  I’m sure we could go on. Perhaps if you had offered any ethical logic, we could discuss this supposed conundrum in a legitimate manner.  But I simply throw alternate situations at you, since you gave me no argument to work from.

I take even further offense at your blasé attempt to justify the illegal download by excusing it as some sort of heroic action that would in some way save the environment.  In fact, Mr. Cohen, if you did any sort of research before committing pen to paper (or even, simply, read your own newspaper), you would know that in fact, the ecological consequences of using an e-reader are potentially worse than those from the production of physical books.  For example, one would have to read 100 digital books on any one e-reader to “break even” in regards to fossil fuels, water use, and global warning, not to mention that “the adverse health impacts from making one e-reader are estimated to be 70 times greater than those from making a single book.” As Valerie Merians points out below, an article in the New York Times on the very day of your column made exactly that point. But this is almost beside the point, which is really my surprise and disappointment at your lack of argument and lack of research.  You do work for the New York Times, don’t you?

So my question is (perhaps for next week’s column), could you take another look at C.D.’s actions? A more nuanced, informed approach perhaps?  If not, I think it will be the last time that your particular page of the magazine is worthy of my time.  Unless of course, my reading the paper online justifies free home delivery.  After all, it’s all just content, isn’t it?

Sincerely,
Megan Halpern