/lit/ - Literature

>theft
no.

/thread

>>14081799
information should be free
commodifying thoughts is more ethically abhorrent than theft of corporate owned private property.

>>14081795
Does it benefit you? Then you should do it

>>14081795
Not only should knowledge be free, but books published today are either YA/genre fiction trash, political propaganda, useless self-help dribble, or worthless pop phil/psy books, and academic journals are written by obscurantist ivory tower elitists. It's better to pirate books and let the system burn to the ground than perpetuate it by buying them. It would be unethical not to steal or pirate books.

>>14081893
/thread
Any good sites to get my free knowledge ?

>>14081811
information is the product of labor. if you don't like labor being withheld by publishers for a fair price, invent a better system that doesn't fuck over authors. i'm for it.

>paraphrasing an old irrelevant hippie
double cringe

>>14081893
fair point. but if you're not willing to pay the author for his work, why are you reading it?

>>14081904
check the sticky

>>14081928
Thanks

>>14081795
according to what set of ethics?
if you're so worried about being a good capitalist just read books online FOR FREE within the public domain. so just read everything published before the early 20th century, which is all you should be reading anyway.

It's neutral to immoral to pirate books. It's most ethical to buy secondhand books, because they have been created for a certain purpose, and while they are not on the shelf of an individual they're not being used for that purpose. Respect the animate souls of inanimate objects by duplicating them as infrequently as possible and cherishing those souls which are most neglected.

>>14081799
>download a book for free
>don't hinder anyone's ability to read or enjoy it
>somehow theft
shiggy diggy

>>14081913
>fair point. but if you're not willing to pay the author for his work, why are you reading it?
Most of the people on this board read authors who are long gone.

>>14081963
>what the fuck is copyright
shiggydiggywiggybiggy

>>14081977
It's a retarded system that has no legitimacy because you can't steal information

>>14081996
>you can't steal information
you actually can. information does not want to be free, or want to be free. information has no preference because it does not have wants. you can take what does not belong to you without actually depriving anyone else of its benefit. this is what secret knowledge is about. or copyright. i don't like it any more than you do but it's reality and folly to deny that information can actually be possessed.

>>14082015
Knowledge created that is then locked away is knowledge of no value
Only when the information is engaged with is it realized and free proliferation of the information leads to the greatest engagement

>>14082031
>Knowledge created that is then locked away is knowledge of no value
Maybe true if only one person has access and they die and the knowledge is lost. Not true if it is access limited to a class; eg priests or whatever.

>only when it is engaged it is engaged
Yes. You're right.

>>14082015
Of course you can possess information but you can't steal it. If someone has some information, you don't take it from them when you get it. You don't deprive someone from his possession if you hear him say his favourite meal so why would you if you copy his book?

>>14082049
>implying theft means deprivation of another

to illustrate the point:

let's say there's a water pump. it's the only one for thirty miles. someone other than you owns it. they control access. there are guards, normally, and they'd kick your ass for using it without paying.

would you taking a sip deprive him of access to the natural aquifer below?

would it be stealing?

>>14082054
What does theft means then?

>>14082059
Ye it would be stealing because you would deny him of the quantity of water you drank

>>14082066
>Ye it would be stealing because you would deny him of the quantity of water you drank
Not what I asked.

>What does theft means then?
Normally, depriving someone of something they own. In the water pump example, the aquifer still exists. Your sip would not have drained it. In the case of information, once the secret is out... it is out. The aquifer as it were is gone.

>>14082074
Please reformulate then because I don't get where you're getting with that analogy

>>14081795
Its being ethical or otherwise isn't determined by the price asked for it, anon.

>>14082080
okay take the example of snowden. he took some data from a top secret network and shared it with the public.

the data is still in the possession of the government, but much of it is now useless because sources were exposed and programs compromised.

that information, now "free", is actually worthless. did snowden steal? that's debatable, some say he's a righteous whistleblower. but there's no doubt his reveal reduced the value of the information he took to zero. ie, the aquifer has disappeared.

>>14081977
Copyright infringement is not theft and is not immoral. Copyright law is immoral.

>>14082122
>Copyright law is immoral.
care to extrapolate?

>>14082099
>is actually worthless
It was worth exposing the corruption and illegal activities of the United States government.

>>14082127
>the corruption and illegal activities
this has yet to be proven in court.

>>14082099
Reducing the value is nothing like stealing. If you have car engines to sell and I come in with more efficient and cheaper engines, yours are useless because nobody will want to buy them, but I didn't steal anything from you (>inb4 stealing livelihood). I don't understand how the aquifer is pertinent here.
btw the problem with Snowden is that he didn't respect the terms of his employment, it's not about stealing.

>>14081795
No, but it's also not unethical.

>>14082124
Culture flourished when copyright did not exist, people were free to steal plots, lines, characters, or whatever, were free to remix them and make new works. If Homer's works were copyrighted in antiquity, the Aeneid wouldn't have been written; if ur-Hamlet was copyrighted, Hamlet wouldn't have been written. Depriving the world of such works is a crime against humanity and is immoral.

>>14082129
>the US govt hasn't proven the US govt to be corrupt
What a shock.

>>14082059

That's different. You're not entitled to someone's intellectual work like you are to a human right like water, or arguably a natural resource.

>>14082148
You are not entitled to tell me I can't share a number with someone else.

>>14082151
>tell me
actually you are entitled to tell me, but not to coerce me from doing so

>>14082139
>implying a happy ending to Romeo and Juliet was good, at all
>implying Aeneid was anything but Roman flattery
>implying "culture flourished" because of a lack of copyright and not because of an overabundance of resources including literacy and demand for these things
You haven't proven your claim, how copyright is immoral. You've only shown how in a few cases copyright could have (but didn't) inhibit works that benefit the common good.

>>14082132
>Reducing the value is nothing like stealing.
Okay give me all your quarters. I'll give you an equal number of nickels. You tell me what that is.

>>14082148
>a human right like water
LOL

>>14082059
I'm the guy you were responding to, I finally get what you mean.
In the water pump example, while using it you are depriving the owner of the ability to use it himself. In the Snowden example, you using the information doesn't prevent the US government from using it.

>>14082161
>give me all your quarters. I'll give you an equal number of nickels
If I agreed to that exchange it's not stealing. If I didn't and you took the quarters from behind my back, yes you stole them and you giving me nickels is irrelevant.

>>14082174
>If I didn't and you took the quarters from behind my back, yes you stole them and you giving me nickels is irrelevant.
Exactly how the US government did not agree to allow Snowden to publish their secrets. Quite the opposite in fact. Or the hypothetical water pump owner did not agree to let you use his water without paying.

>>14082161
Culture flourished despite no copyright laws existing. Copyright is justified by it's supposed power to inspire creativity. Copyright has brought us super hero movies and Disney Star Wars films. As copyright keeps being extended, and these characters never enter the public domain, we will keep getting super hero movies and Disney Star Wars films. That alone is immoral enough. Q.E.D.

>>14082183
Snowden agreed to not publish the US government's secret by signing on as an employee then broke that agreement. It's a matter of honouring a contract, not theft. Snowden didn't steal anything because it was information but he didn't respect his engagement.
The water pump owner didn't agree so that is stealing yes.

>>14082194
>It's a matter of honouring a contract, not theft.
>what is a social contract

>>14082211
It's a retarded idea that has no legitimacy because you didn't expressly agree to it

>>14082214
>social contract is retarded
so why aren't you out robbing 7/11s anon?

>>14081795
It fully ethical. Ideas don't belong to any one person, because they didn't create them, they merely discovered them. Any book that is 70 years old is not protected by copyright anyways, so just grab them.
Also, you shouldn't pay for something you don't know the contents of anyways, because you don't know if it holds any worth (that's why people preordering video-games are retarded).

Piracy is not theft beause it doesn't remove something from the creator. If a profit never manifested, it was never real in the first place, so you stole nothing, because you can't steal something that doesn't exist.

Copy-right is also usury, because it excepts infinite income for a single act of work, the same way a usurer excepts disproportionate return based on a single agreement being made.

Writers should either ask for a lot of money, or they should publish for free and ask for donations.

>b-but what if I want to write books for a living
If you ever become a good enough writer, money will not be an issue for you, becoming published will be the hard part. If you predicate your entire life on maybe writing a good enough book to be published you are an idiot.

>>14082219
Because that would be stealing, unlike downloading a book
I'll check your reply when I come back from the gym

>>14081913
>invent a better system
They already did. Its called the internet. Thats what we are discussing in this thread.

>>14081795
if the author is dead and someone else is receiving the money who cares if the author is still alive you should support them

>>14081795

Technical stuff: probably not.

Fiction: no one even cares.

Philosophy: most ethical.

>>14081913
>fair point. but if you're not willing to pay the author for his work, why are you reading it?
>implying everything worth doing should be paid for
"No!"
If an author is only willing to write for money and material gain, why would I want to read him?

>>14081795
The greatest writers wrote for either fame, recognition or just to put their ideas out there.
People who hold their "ideas" hostage deserve to be irrelevant, except the masses can be fooled into believing that they need their ideas.

>>14081942
>It's most ethical to buy secondhand books
How can that be, the labour of the author is not in any way reciprocated when you buy a second hand book.

>>14081977
>what is copyright
Not related to theft, which was your first point, in any way in the eyes of the law.

When you are dead you won't be troubled by it, so why be troubled by it when alive?

>>14081970
This. With the mention that it still requires a bit of work to translate and format the book into a readable pdf, and that should still be compensated.

>>14081811
>>14081893
fuck off stallman nobody likes you

>>14082269
every author who ever lived wrote for personal gain

>>14081913
>if you're not willing to pay the author for his work, why are you reading it
1. To possess knowledge.
2. I live in country where i can't get books i need, and in english at that
3. I refuse to pay for digital because its pure information copied with no effort or money being required to copy it
4. I believe dependence of knowledge on money is led by ideas of greedy people, because it makes knowledge a commodity, reducing its real value
5. In digital age you don't actually own anything, everything can be taken away from you without explanation.
6. I hate the idea that in the age where people don't even read books we should monetize them more heavily, instead of opening vaults of information so more people will be motivated to explore it in the most accessible way possible, instead of masturbating on anime

>>14082259
That's where I'm at.

>>14082648
>every author who ever lived wrote for personal gain
Prove it faggot

>>14081795
It is entirely ethical. Most people worth reading are already dead. The sharing of literature will make the world a better place. The world will eventually fall to the hands of the broke college students who are passionate about books that they don't have enough money to buy.

>>14081913
Most authors I read are dead. Why the fuck would I want to give publishers my money for their books?

>>14082648
>every author who ever lived wrote for personal gain
First of all personal gain is not always money, sometimes its fame and respect. And representation of your own ideas in society is above any personal gain. Planting ideas in people can be reward on its own.

>>14081795
it's only bad if you're a wealthy first-worlder who has literally no other problems to worry about.