Just an observation...
In a thread below, Phil Ivey was accused by a casino of taking advantage of a defect in the card pattern while playing baccarat and profiting $9.6 million. Reading the responses in that thread, it seemed the general consensus was Ivey did nothing wrong and it was the casino's fault for not noticing the error. In other words, it seemed posters felt Ivey was justified in taking advantage of the casino.
Now, in this thread, the book made a grading mistake and the general consensus is that it would be immoral, dishonest and a "character defect" for the poster to take advantage of the grading error by not notifying the book.
Im not saying these are 100% analogous but am surprised how the board came to two different outcomes on two similar scenarios.