To Mooch or Not to Mooch? A colleague recently took a business trip to Manhattan that was paid for by the organization we work for, an underfinanced nonprofit. There was construction at her hotel, which understandably affected her comfort. She complained and was offered three free nights for a subsequent visit. She hasn't told our supervisor, but she wants to use the credit for a weekend away with her husband. I feel she should offer the credit to our employer. We face serious budget constraints and could use the free stay on another business trip. I'm sympathetic to your colleague's position. Your employer got what it paid for - her work during the trip - and she, after all, is the one who endured lost sleep or other inconveniences. But if she thinks she's in the right, why isn't she telling the boss? Is your supervisor unreasonable or obsessed with cutting costs? Or does your colleague, deep down, have a queasy feeling about what she's doing? Of course, something may be right and still not be the easiest thing to explain. But appearances do matter, and being able to act comfortably in the light of day counts for something. In my regular job - as The Times's standards editor, dealing with ethics rules and journalistic conflicts of interest, among other things - I often put this test to myself: If a fair-minded reader knew everything that I know about the background of a particular situation, would I feel perfectly comfortable with what we've done? Suggest to your colleague that she tell your supervisor what happened and forthrightly explain why she should be allowed to keep the credit. A wise employer would conclude that it's a cheap way to make a good worker happy. Of course, your boss may not be wise - or the organization's finances may be truly dire - in which case she may insist that the nonprofit needs the credit. If so, your colleague should yield it; she loses her free weekend but keeps her credibility. As for you, once you've offered this thoughtful advice, you should stay out of it. It's her call. Through my public library, I can check out a book on my Kindle for 21 days. Then the system sends a signal to erase the book and make it available for someone else. But there's a loophole: if my Kindle is offline, the book isn't deleted and is still available for another reader. So if I need another day, I leave the Kindle offline and continue until I'm done. When I go back online, the book is deleted. I say that's fine. But my co-worker says that I promised to return it after 21 days - just like a physical book - and I must honor that promise. In my day job at The Times, I guard against journalistic conflicts of interest, so I should disclose one here: my wife is a librarian and has a vested interest in seeing people play by the rules. Among other things, she says, that means returning those analog books on time so others can use them. But this query introduces a new, digital-age wrinkle, reflecting the broader debate about property rights online. In keeping your e-book a little longer, you aren't actually depriving anyone else of its use. So where's the harm? In theory, gaming the system could undermine the whole arrangement. The library's deal with the publisher is for a limited number of copies, and the electronic deletion enforces that limit. Without it, e-book publishers might be loath to deal with libraries at all, and we would all be worse off. But Amazon has designed a system that it must feel provides sufficient protection. I'm quite sure your "loophole" will not come as a surprise to the Kindle engineers. Since your book is deleted when you go back online, you can't amass a shelf of free books the way freeloaders can amass movies or songs, thereby threatening an industry. To reach for a bricks-and-mortar analogy: If an old-fashioned printed library book is due back on a Saturday, but you happen to know that the library will count it as on time as long as you slip it through the after-hours slot before opening time on Monday, is it unethical to finish it over Sunday brunch? That seems unduly harsh. Your co-worker should give you a break on this one. Ariel Kaminer is off this week. Philip B. Corbett is The Times's associate managing editor for standards. E-mail queries to ethicist@nytimes.com, and include a daytime phone number.