/lit/ - Literature

Yes.

>>3721930
Helps to smash capitalism.

>>3721962
>Helps to smash capitalism.
what?

How are new works going to get created?

>>3721969
New works aren't created for profit.

>I don't like reading long texts on monitors, e.g. I wouldn't illegally download a book
>I can't go to a bookshop and steal books, because I'm not that stupid

looks like I'm gonna have to buy them.

I don't really care either way. I don't use ereaders so pirating books would involve physically taking them from the bookstore which I'm too scared to do.

>>3721971
Then we'd have no writers.

>>3721981
lel

>>3721962
Riiiiiight.

We read for free, watch movies for free, listen to music for free and work for free. Truly the best way to get rid of capitalism.

There's always gonna be somebody buying the books, so I'll just skip that and read for free. Neil Gaiman says piracy helped him sell even more, it's on youtube.
A lot of writers never made any money while alive, they just had dayjobs to make ends meet. Faulkner comes to mind. Also Kafka, Joyce, Pessoa, almost every writer of importance. And when they quit their jobs because their writing could sustain them, they just started writing shit.
If money's your motivation to write, then fuck you.

>>3721991
So pirate everything?

Does piracy hurt the industry?

>>3721997
Piracy hurts writers who pump out low quality high quantity genre trope fests

>>3722000
I recently read the A Song of Ice and Fire series. I assume George R.R. Martin is motivated by money to continue the series. So is pirating his books wrong?

>>3722006
It puts you at odds with his goals, if that's what wrong means

>>3721981
Oh god fuck, did Daddy fuck it that deep up you?

>In this thread: /Lit/ tries to sound intelligent while explaining why they don't like to pay for things.
Is it so bad to just admit you don't want to pay for the book? Holy shit guys.

>>3721987
Yeah, that works you know. You're describing the abolition of labour, wage and capital.

>>3722015
There are two posts that actually say they pirate books

If an ebook is only available with DRM, is pirating okay in that case, or should I buy a physical copy or not read it at all?

Is it okay to pirate a book to sample it?

>>3721997
Literature is not an industry.

>>3722018
Well,yeah. Mostly I was aiming at that "I'm an edgy rebel,I steal books! Capitalism is bad!" guy.

>>3722021
Publishing is.

>>3722020
Pirate whatever the fuck you want and if you want to support with your money find a way to do that, through donations or actually buying his book.

>>3721997
If everyone only pirated it would hurt the industry. The reality it that very few people only pirate and it tends to be a small audience of young people. This goes for movies, books, music, etc. The majority of people who pirate actually end up buying some of the products they pirate or have become acquainted with through pirating that they otherwise would not have bought.

It's basically price discrimination taken to extremes.

>>3721974
this is a case where using "i.e." would have been better

>>3722025
>It's basically price discrimination taken to extremes.
I don't understand what you mean by this.

>>3722022
>implying capitalism isn't bad

>>3722032
>implying it is

>>3722030
For instance, products in a poor neighborhood are cheaper than a rich neighborhood because otherwise the poor people will not people able to purchase your products.

Piraters are an audience who probably would not otherwise have been reached unless the product is free. Giving it away to them costs nothing (because there is no physical product) and creates the chance to gain profits if any of these people buy something. There isn't a lot of overlap between people who would have bought it otherwise and piraters.

>>3722025
>the industry
Fuck capitalists.

>>3722038
>There isn't a lot of overlap between people who would have bought it otherwise and piraters.
Why do you think there isn't much overlap? I would think many of the pirates would have x hours of entertainment to fill in their lives. If they couldn't fill it with pirated media, it seems likely they would purchase at least something more.

>>3722039
Industries exist outside capitalism, you know.

>>3722028
thanks. English is not my native tongue so I appreciate your advice, Sir. have a nice day!

>>3721974
e-ink isn't a monitor

Yes.
Knowledge ought to be free.

>>3722052
There's are multiple current non-capitalist authoring industries, such as academia, fan fiction, or fora.

>>3722069
Modern fiction isn't really knowledge, it's entertainment.

>>3722073
True if you only look at what's popular.

>>3722047
I pirate and I buy hard-copy(always second hand). It usually hinges on what mood I'm in, but I never pay more than 3 dollars either way.
The thing with digital media is that there is no reason for any ebook to cost more than a few bucks. There's no production costs, no logistics costs, no personnel costs, other than the guy who wrote it (and if it's a newer book, it was probably already digitalized to begin with) and the guy who transcribed it.
I'm not the person who goes "capitalism should be destroyed!" just because I'm not profiting from it, but I'm not going to put up with it's shit, either.

>>3722073
Why are they mutually exclusive?

there's really no need for the book publishing industry anymore. They don't really contribute anything to the business cycle except for paying off the new york times to put it in their weekly reviews.

once for profit authors die off maybe we'll actually have some good modern lit re-emerge.

>>3722073
You can learn things through fiction.
Usually moral questions or lessons about thought,etc.

>>3722069
if knowledge was free, nobody would bother writing it down or publishing it.

>>3722121
>orly
>philosophers, in it for the big bucks

>>3722121
>if knowledge was free
You're a goddamn moron. That is the absolute dumbest thing I've heard on 4chan in a long fucking time.

>>3722131
>absolute dumbest thing I've heard on 4chan in a long fucking time.
you gotta visit other boards more often then

>>3722124
they wouldn't be if there was nothing they could gain from it. they don't make a lot of money, true, but still more than nothing at all.
plus printing, publishing, shipping of books etc. would be way too expensive nowadays if there was nothing to gain from it.

i cry for 10 minutes stright every time i download a book, then say a prayer to jesus

>>3722131
>using similar phrasing to match the post I quoted, talking about books and their value
you sure who the moron is?

>>3722141
Yeah. I'm sure.

>>3722025
>If everyone only pirated it would hurt the industry.

What if everyone only went to the library to read books instead of buying them themselves?

Libraries have been around for a long time as well as well... longer than the book 'industry'.

Is this question motivates an opinion in your mind then you are a fucking pleb.

>>3722190
>pleb
Middle brow.

>>3722191
>pleb
>not commenting on the fact that the post is utter gibberish
>/lit/

>>3721930
>What are /lit/'s views on pirating books?

Why use the excuse that 'pirating means the publisher/author won't make monies!' when you can read nearly any book for free at a library anyway?

>>3722196
There is no reason to critique the epiphenomena when the phenomena is critiqued.

>>3722006
Of course not. You're paying the Iron Price.

>>3722197
Yeah. That's probably why nobody actually gives a shit. Has anybody ever actually been charged with pirating books?

>>3722160
Yes, that would hurt the industry too, if everyone only went to libraries. I think that is the point I was making - that people don't do that.

>mfw i just want to download a Cesar Milan training book for my english bulldog puppy on my new app

>>3722224
so why don't you do it?

I think of it like a library. Even though I know libraries actually pay to licence some books. If I can't find a book at my library and I don't want to wait for an interlibrary loan, I'll just pirate it.

So what's the difference between pirating a book and buying it second hand? In both cases the author/publisher/whatever gets no money at all, yet nobody is against buying/selling second hand books.
Is it paying that makes you feel legitimated? If you've ever bought a second hand book, you have no right to criticize those who pirate books.

>>3722379
well the difference is that a second hand book is not new and was paid for at one time by the original buyer.

though the same might be true of some pirated ebooks (though not necessarily), it only takes one bought ebook to make as many copies as you'd like whereas second hand books are limited by their physicality

>>3722393
ok, so then your point is that second-hand books are ok because somebody bought the book first. In that case, we should all have the right to pirate the topselling books, because hey, there's enough people buying them already.
Still dont agree, if it's wrong to pirate books, then it's wrong to buy them second hand as well, because in both cases you are cheating the author of his money.

>>3722199
More like the Silicon Price.

>>3721930

>Artificial scarcity

Bullshit, don't buy into it. Pirate everything you can, paying for ebooks makes you an idiot.

>>3721997

You think I could have bought the millions of songs, thousands of books or hundreds of movies I've downloaded? Piracy doesn't hurt anyone.

>>3722379

Most industries are against second-hand goods, only a handful have the potential to do anything about it though. But digital media producers want to have their cake and eat it to - digital products not being available for re-sale.

My thoughts are that everyone should do it, and that's the way trends are going. Businesses and industries aren't supposed to try and control social trends - they're supposed to react to them. Holding their breath and stamping their feet will only lead to their falling apart - see HMV.

>>3722596
>>3722596
I know the industries dont like it and I understand it. My point is, people who have bought second hand books (that is, everybody, pretty much) yet are against piracy are hypocrites.

>>3722612

Of course they are, that's the whole point of convincing people to pay for something they can get for free though.

>>3722584
I wouldn't say that, but the people who lose the most money are usually have it in surplus.
Small businesses like record shops could suffer from it too, but those shops are losing out just as much, if not more, to youtube and itunes.
The lobbyists trying to pass all the anti piracy laws are almost exclusively huge corporate identities.
The accusation that pirating is ruining the industry is mostly just whining. I like to think that it's the other way around. If you get people who like music, and give them good music they want to buy, they're likely to buy the hardcopy despite the option of a free download (which they'll then download for their mp3), because it then has a sentimental value.
And then there's the fact that pirating is actually a form of word-of-mouth advertisement, which yes, costs the industry but for a big corporation like, say Sony, the cost of a valid ad campaign is in the millions annually.
For small, struggling bands pirating can be a boon, by getting out to a demographic that wouldn't have come across them otherwise, including places like clubs, and building a fanbase that then go on to enter the market as valid consumers.
Pirating (and other technically illegal things, like song covers or movie parodies) is arguably just as important as the legit market, especially in a system that favors the big and the rich.

>>3722704

Pirating (and other technically illegal things, like song covers or movie parodies) is arguably just as important as the legit market, especially in a system that favors the big and the rich.

>especially in a system that favors the big and the rich.

You've just found the reason why huge multinationals are doing everything they can to destroy piracy - less competition from smaller competitors. People won't branch out as much if they can't try before they buy.

Writers have to eat too.

>>3721974
>I don't like reading long texts on monitors
Is there any real reason why this is such a pain in the ass? I dislike it as well but have trouble pinpointing why I do or what makes me feel that way.

I pirate books. I'm not going to justify it. Most of my favorite writers are dead anyway, but I don't really care either way.

>>3722379
By buying second hand, it gives the original purchased more money to spend, and they may well buy a new book with that extra money.

But you still have that money saved from not buying it used.

I can't economics very well.

>>3722577
Because the prices are unfair?

>>3722584
Of all those songs, books, and movies, might not you have purchased at least something? You must have filled tens or hundreds of hours with them. Surely you would have bought some form of media to fill those hours.

>>3722612
You make a really strong argument. I can't think of any counter.

>>3722946
No monitor in the john.

>>3722925
Of course. They want to secure as much revenue for themselves, and they put a frankly disgusting amount of effort into making everything as unfair in their favor as possible. And because of how central we've made money, how it's become a driving force for everything, income-driven corporations have way too much power, so they can do just about whatever they want.
It's law, not justice. But pirating isn't going anywhere.

>>3721981
Top lel, my nigga, top lel.

>>3722936
Scrolling. Turning a page is much more satisfying.

>>3722981
It wasn't a joke.

best ebooks source?
i use the following:
en.bookfi.org
bookos.org
libgen.info
also #bookz, tpb

>>3722987
Well, its outrageous nature sure made it sound that way.

>>3722996
Well, we'd have much less writers. People wouldn't work to become writers, because there's no money in it.

>>3721981
So the thousands of years of people writing, learning, thinking, painting and, yes, even helping people despite being shunned, prosecuted, incarcerated, threatened with death and executed because of it, that was all just imagined, because there's no such thing as immaterial gain?

>>3723009
Most famous writers never made much, if any, money off their works anyway. They all worked at day jobs and wrote in their spare time.

>>3723015
No, but material gain is a motivator.

>>3723020
I bet a lot of the new york times bestsellers are making a decent amount of money.

>>3723029
I also bet they didn't start writing with the direct plan of getting in the New York Times. They wrote because they enjoyed it. Material gain is not, and has never been (back to the ancient patrons of Italy and further) a primary motivator for the arts. The arts are the primary motivator for the arts.

>>3723033
Material gain inspires basically all the major video games to be created.

I assume it drives most Star Wars books that are written now, or the D&D series books.

>>3723039
>>3723039
The initial claim was that there would be no writers if writers weren't materially compensated. Pointing out that the mass produced low quality pulp would dry up does not prove that point. Nobody denies that many (generally very bad) books are created for money. What people deny is that all books are created for money. You haven't come close to defending that claim.

>>3723033
>(back to the ancient patrons of Italy and further)
Ancient? You're talking two centuries ago, the impressionists were probably the first significant example of a movement subverting aristocratic support of the arts.

>>3723039
>>3723029
Material gain is a motivator for commercial art, yes. Piracy will hurt the literature industry, or at least the industry as it is now because obviously it will learn to adapt, and that caters to just one form of the "writer". A worthless, restrictive, degenerative, commercial form which I would not miss.

>>3723033
This
Art is a driving force in itself. The experience of creating nice things, that's an amazing feeling. I can't even describe it, but after hours and hour of working and working and then you step back and you can see that, something you created, with every single line, every letter, ever fleck of paint just where you want it and you're so fucking proud. That kind of feeling has nothing to do with anybody else, or money.


>>3723039
So what's your point? There's gossip going around that they're not considered art my some people, never mind that actually, yes, I'm sure there are plenty of video game designers whose motivation is creating something fun, something people can enjoy.

>I assume it drives most Star Wars books that are written now, or the D&D series books.
And that's something else entirely. That's called milking a franchise.

>>3723125
>The experience of creating nice things, that's an amazing feeling. That kind of feeling has nothing to do with anybody else, or money.
tasteless pastiche art school student detected

>>3723280
That's rude and untrue, but I entirely expected that.
It's hard to explain these things without sounding like a twit on a good day, and I'm exceptionally bad at it.
It's just really hard to get someone to understand just how much I really really love beautiful things, and I want to make that too. It just seems like the kind of feeling people who invest their entire lives into making beautiful things would also feel.
I don't understand what people have against that nowadays. Beautiful things are awesome.

Everybody wants to be a nihilist or a realist or whatever the fuck. Life sucks, nothing has meaning, everything's shit, stop enjoying things. If you enjoy things it's because you're an idiot. Grown ups are miserable and drink middle range whiskey alone in a militantly furnished apartment with a rusty tap and no hot water. I'm so fucking jaded. Look how intense and philosophical I am. It's 500 Holden Caulfields standing in a room going, "everybody is a fake, everybody is a fake." Fuck.

Here, enjoy this picture of a dead deer because it's fucking amazing.

As someone who writes, let me just say ill be releasing my eBooks via torrent. I will make money by other means, and releasing my books for free encourages people to put money in my pocket via other means.

Piracy only hurts those who profit from your purchases, and only a slim amount goes to the author. Same for music, as confirmed by several friends I have who are in signed (and quite reputable bands).

I enjoy writing. If people enjoy my books, that's all I want. If I happen to make money, so be it. The truth is, writing never has paid well, not with money at least.

I like most people who DO pirate am too broke to buy stuff new...but I love physical copies, so when I do have cash, I buy CDs and books etc, most of which I wouldn't have without having had exposure to it through piracy.

>>3721974
Or you could just use a public library. Where the hell have you been the past 250 years?

>>3723451
Keep up the good fight, Anon.

(though I can't dismiss the actual Holden so easily)

I pirate books... And buy the ones I like. Same with CD's and movies.

I think the big F.U. to the publishing industry is the fact that DRM on their books is cracked almost instantly, and is usually a LOT more convenient than going legal. I actually studied the effect of this, and it's surprising. Louis CK's Live at the Beacon theatre (I think that's the name of it anyway) netted him over $1M in the first 30 days it was released in HD and without DRM, and for cheap at $5.00. I see no reason that can't work with other industries, it's just a matter of getting rid of the middle-men like iTunes/Amazon etc.

>>3721969
Simplistic argument, but the same thing was said about the secondary market and public libraries, and books kept selling along just fine.

>>3721987
You don't 'get' sarcasm, do you?

>>3721997
Depends... the smarmy/gabagey shit that gets churned out with shocking regularity, yes, it gets hurt, but if you're somewhat ethical about it (ie. buying the stuff you actually like), you'll see the better writers sell more.

>>3722020
Library, if at all possible.

>>3723492
There's other options than going 100% free to torrent, but if that's your bag, then good luck to you!

If you're interested in changing pricing schemes, you could serialize the novels and do a full download for a fixed price at the end, or a smaller total amount for the episodic downloads.

>>3723029
How many of those people are there per year? Maybe 1000 if you're generous?

You have better luck making money as an Army private.

>>3723101
> Ancient? You're talking two centuries ago, the impressionists were probably the first significant example of a movement subverting aristocratic support of the arts.

That renaissance period happened about 600 years ago, and I think he's talking about Romans/Greeks.

>>3721930

It depends on the effect it has on authors' sales. If I knew that piracy was causing authors to lose money, and in turn decrease the incentive to write, then I would be against it. Since I have no reason to believe that's the case, I'm indifferent. I would never pirate books myself, but I don't condemn those who do.

More importantly, where does /lit/ pirate its books from?

>>3723873
The writer rarely loses money on sales of a book. Generally, they get an advance and a royalty on each book that ends up being something like $0.45.

If you're talking about self-published authors, then yes, it's a fair option that they would be out on the sale of the book, but if it's a digital copy, they're not advancing anything to print so they're out nothing other than the download of the initial pirated copy.

At that point, if it was good and I liked it, I'd buy a physical copy from the source.

For Public Domain publications though, screw that, I'll download a copy.

>>3721930

It's no different than going to the library.

>>3721974
what is a library?

It's ok.
An artist must work only for his/her love towards art, not because of money.

>>3721930
I pirate every single book that I want, if it's available. If it's not available in a decent epub, then I usually find a used copy somewhere, or read something else.

>>3721930
Every single audio book i have which is over 300 i have pirated and will continue to do so until i die or an hero.

>>3723890
http://en.bookfi.org/

Yes, an artist can create Art with money in mind.
Yes, they can even create Art when money is the main thing in mind.
"classical" artists had sponsors.

No, Pirating isn't doing a lot to damage that,
No, people aren't going to cooperate in their own forced artificial scarcity. "Please help us keep this from you?"

Seriously?
Don't complain about the wolves getting at the chickens behind the paper fence.

It's paper,
It's not going to stop them

>>3722015
That's one of the reasons too, but not the only one

>>3722015
>don't want to pay for the book?
>want to
>Implying that 4chan isn't populated by poorfags.
>implying that even if we had the money, it would be wise to spend it on purchasing over 600 books.

>>3722135
Jesus cries when you don't use spellcheck.

It's /lit, not /b.

>>3722393
ebooks with DRM essentially are an end-run around the principle of first-sale.

Fucks given for piracy = 0

>>3722925
> (and other technically illegal things, like song covers or movie parodies)
Read the Fair Use limitations in copyright law:
17 U.S.C. § 107

Parody, satire, academia etc. are legal uses of IP works.

This is an important distinction: All rights NOT reserved to the copyright owners are reserved to the public. Get acquainted with this, and become comfortable in the idea that you get to use their works and don't necessarily have to pay for them.

>>3722934
that's why they usually get an advance before publishing, or get a job that will pay the bills.

Dude,

Libraries.

>>3723015
Most of those people were financed by wealthy patrons. The copyright system does help alleviate that somewhat, but we still have huge corporations that control vast swaths of our cultural heritage and identity.

>>3723451
you scream "unread".
highschool?

Do the "pirating is okay" arguments for ebooks apply to video games or software as well?

>>3724869
The argument that bourgeois property ought to be stamped out with the butt of a workers' rifle apply equally to all forms of property.

>>3724890
I lost you at 'bourgeois'

Why would I as an individual not try to further my economic means as much as possible? Am I supposed to have empathy for Penguin Publishers? I would rather put the money into my family rather than someone else's ergo I save money and pirate.

What is stealing? What are morals?

>>3724295
What difference does it make?

>>3724919
>What are morals?
You have no moral compass.

>>3724922
Or maybe my moral compass isn't the same as yours. Are you saying morals are objective?

>>3724817
It's like people can't stop proving me right.

>>3724928

Morals are objective, but not in the simplistic way you're thinking. Luckily, internet "pirating" isn't immoral.

>an artist should not work for money, so it's okay to steal even if they don't want me to

This limits the pool of writers to people who are rich enough to not need money.

Besides, fuck you, you're not a philanthropist. How can you expect others to be?

>>3724937
>Morals are objective, but not in the simplistic way you're thinking.
Oh please grace us with your wisdom your highness. Whatever do you mean?

>>3724939
Not him, but many morals are built-in to our genes, so in that sense they are objective in that they are shared by nearly everyone alive.

>>3724944
I call bullshit

Sounds like "new atheist" high school tier philosophy to me.

>>3724947
>Sounds like "new atheist" high school tier philosophy to me.
If that's your rebuttal than I think I've already won the argument.

Arguing with children—you always win, they just never realize it.

>>3724944
>many morals are built-in to our genes

Citation?

>>3724950
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

But you already knew there were citations. I'm not sure what you are arguing at this point.

>>3724950
>many morals are built-in to our genes[1]

1. Sam Harris (http://www.samharris.org/the-moral-landscape))

>>3724919
If your idea of morality (it's okay to steal for lesser benefits to oneself or one's family) were applied universally, everyone would be worse off, including the family you care about. If people stole the fruits of your labour, you and your family would be fucked. You're not physically compelled to be moral, I suppose. But don't call your view "morality," that's clearly the wrong word given that it would be self-defeating if followed by not just yourself.

>>3724944
damn nigga you dumb

>>3724295
libraries are like pirating, every book you read there is a book you didn't buy

thanks to you writers are going broke

>>3721930
I'm a published author. Yet, personally, I haven't paid for a single book in my life.

Piracy is good.

>>3723029
>No, but material gain is a motivator.
Material gain is a demotivator, believe it or not.

Look it up. Material award motivated physical work and demotivates from creative work.

>>3724897
That's because you're a cretinist.

>>3724937
>>3724944
>laughingwhores.png
this is what homeschooling does to a young mind

>>3724962
putting your collection of erotic short stories on amazon for 99 cents isn't being published asshole

>>3724962
>I haven't paid for a single book in my life.
I assume you meant ebook.

I haven't purchased any ebook either. I've only actually read more than a chapter of two ebooks, both pirated: Harry Potter 7, leaked before the release, and A Dance With Dragons. I promptly purchased the hp7 novel when it was released, and I was reading aDwD while the book was being shipped to my house. I'd purchased the set of the first 4 novels, thinking it would take me months to read them, and finished them far ahead of schedule.

I pirate plenty of video games, movies, and television shows to make up for it, so don't think these two cases are me trying to show moral superiority over anyone; I definitely don't feel that way and if I didn't enjoy reading physical books so much I'd surely be pirating the ebook versions to save money because I am a horrible person.

>>3724939
I would not call morals objective, since that word implies morality could apply to any mind, when clearly not all minds will want to be moral or even be capable of it.

But they are near universal, at least some principles are. And if two people disagree about what is right in a given situation, there is reason to argue, since bias could very well be the cause of the disagreement. It's much more likely one person hasn't thought things through completely than it is that both people have such fundamentally different minds that the disagreement is permanent.

>>3724970
#rekt

>>3724957
>we all have the same genes because we are all clones! also jesus

>>3724961
Libraries are generally considered acceptable whereas video game piracy is strongly frowned upon by just about everyone involved; many of the cracker groups tell those downloading their releases that they should buy the game to support the company if they enjoy it. Do you think either is acceptable?

>>3724972
>near universal

stop perpetuating this bullshit

>>3724967
I don't know that word either. 0/2

>>3724977
>physics
>universal
stop perpetuating this bullshit

>>3724978
q.e.d.

>>3724953
>muh appeal to nature
>muh ought dictates is
>muh le dawkins best genius ever
>muh wikipedia scholarship
>muh cancer evolved too so we all must get cancer asap

>>3724982
Are you trying to say morality has no basis in our genetic makeup but the words just won't come out?

If you are incapable of having a conversation with other people, why do you come here?

>>3724983
MORALS are GENETIC? Are you fucking serious guy? If you want to stretch the meaning of morality to mean something that will fit the construction you're trying to put forward, then sure thing amigo

>>3724980
>he thinks stalin has anything to do with physics
>he thinks might/majority makes right
you got only empty words son, let it go

>>3724985
I didn't say morals were entirely genetic. I make no claim to such a thing, and in fact I don't believe they are entirely genetic.

Would you fucking read the post before click reply?

>>3724983
>muh I ignore the post I quote even when it answers every stupid question I ask
get rekt kid

Speaking of piracy, anyone have a download for an epub of The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford?

Please and thankyou.

>>3724998
yes

>>3725001
Could you share it, please?

>>3724998

>>3725004
no

>>3725009
May I ask why?

>>3725011
because jesus or something

>>3725013
Do you really have an epub of the book or are you just fucking with me?

>>3725007
$11 for a a files the size of a few hundred kilobytes does not seem worth it to me.

>>3721930
books are meant to be read and no decent author really gives that much of a shit about the income

>>3725023
quality > quantity

>>3725029
How many digital books have you purchased?

>>3725030
none but I don't enjoy reading on my computer. As for other things that can be measured in bytes, I have never judged their worth by their size because that's just fucking stupid

harry potter 7 shouldn't be considered more worthy of your money because it has 1000 pages over 20, its still the same level of trash
The same is true for I don't fucking know tao lin

>>3724985
Do people honestly think morals arose with no genetic basis whatsoever?

/lit/ can't possibly be that stupid. It's just the one idiot.

Mainstream pirate party beliefs.

>>3725889
Creationists and their social science counter-parts really do believe things like that. Since /lit/ is full of the latter...

>>3725903
>their social science counter-parts
I don't actually know what you are referring to. Could you explain this?

>>3725905
Blank slatists. The reason why they are like creationists is that they don't really think that humans are like the other animals. They don't think humans evolved like the other animals did, and especially they eschew the idea that behaviors can be heritable. That is quite obviously a requirement for anything to evolve, including morality, but also all the other things that characterize human nature.

They keep on insisting that humans are somehow special, exactly like regular creationists.

>>3725922
>Blank slatists
All this time I thought I was dealing with people who are just ignorant. They aren't ignorant; they know the truth and yet deny it.

laws aren't real.

>>3725962
To what have you redefined 'real' as?

>>3725970
on the same ontological level as i am.

that is, they exist insofar as they interact with me.

>>3725978
So you've never paid taxes? Or if you have, you've paid them incorrectly?

>>3725987
I think what >>3725978 means is that they are the result of a convention. The same way that morals could be the result of a convention (not saying they are). And in some level he's right. Morals have changed drastically in the last 3 millenia (compare greek morals with today's), and it can't be due to genetic mutations or whatever. Morals have changed because of conventions.
Now, there could still be a genetic background, or some moral laws that havent changed, which are the ones that are genetically encoded. 'Thou shall not steal' might be one.
But homosexuality, slavery, even death are moral issues that were seen much differently than today in the greeks' time, in the medieval ages. So how do you explain that, if morals are JUST genetic? Isn't there a big consensual component there?

>>3725987
>So you've never paid taxes?

Correct.

>>3726111

I partly agree but I'm happy with the "on the same ontological level as I am" definition, it's pretty bulletproof, I don't care whether they are variable or not, I'm no moral genealogist.

>>3726111
Thank you for explaining what he meant.

>if morals are JUST genetic?
No one here has claimed that. You are arguing a strawman.

Say somebody builds a wall, and puts a door in it.
And charges you for going through the door.
Now say there's a quake, large sections of the wall fall down. The door is still there, the frame is still there, And the doorkeeper continues to act as if nothing has changed.

He's incensed that some people would walk through the open sections instead of using the door. Forgetting that the doors functionality was dependent on the rest of the wall.

Now I pirate, and I pay, and I use the library, and don't exclusively use any one of those methods to get at content.

If the doorkeeper can fix the wall, good for him, I'll go back to using the window(library) and paying to go through the door.

But I'm not about to skip walking through the open sections just for the benefit of the doorkeeper.

I only pirate dead authors.

Is it wrong to think that since author won't make any money off it, then nobody should?

>>3721930
It's ok, allows people to get to read everything in the world for free, but i prefer physic books, with real pages and ink, i like how books smell and i like to hold the book with my both hands and feel the paper.

>>3724931
Everyone enjoys beautiful things, if you had more cultural exposure, you'd understand that many people find things beautiful despite not falling in line with what is declared to be so by the culture industry. Just because many people's tastes are unrecognizable to you doesn't mean they're stifled or not present.

And you just seem like an inexperienced child because you're trying to illuminate a tired feeling that is very well known, and not just in the production of academic art, the average worker knows it.

>>3726198
yeah, nice analogy. Only the earthquake is a phenomenon that you haven't caused, whereas pirating can be seen (maybe, not sure) as you going and smashing the wall down, and then walking through it.

Who knows, I'm too busy downloading movies to care.

>>3721930
As someone who uses libraries almost exclusively, I think publishing companies are missing out because I would pay $5 for an electronic copy of a book I liked if it had no DRM. But I won't pay $8 for a 20 year old novel with DRM on it. If I want to lend a friend a copy, I should be able to. Just like with a paper book. Which is why they'll stay around - well, one of the many reasons they'll stay around.

>>3726245
Nobody created art, therefore art has no owner, and therefore no one can sell art.

>>3726245
No, the nature of the internet and digital media broke holes into the walls, the pirate scene just created some steps to help you through them.

>>3726245
>. Only the earthquake is a phenomenon that you haven't caused

did i invent the internet? am i myself uploading all the free content?

>>3721930
Let me give you a hint

Sticky on the front page of /lit/ describes one of the best places from which you can pirate books. What does that tell you?

>>3723492
Rather than full on torrenting why not do a pay what you want style system (including payments of £0). Include something in the licensing saying that people are free to distribute so long as they do not charge for it.

>>3726198
What if the wall fix involves always on-DRM and forced cloud-gaming such that you never even download the game?

And do you have no moral problem with stealing?

>>3724959
Do you even game theory?

>>3726237
>Is it wrong to think that since author won't make any money off it, then nobody should?
I feel bad for the immediate family. They'd probably earn 100x more money if everyone just pirated the ebooks and sent them $5 instead.

Is it morally okay to steal ebooks?

Is it morally okay for publishers to protect books with DRM?

>>3726340
How do you steal an eBook?

Torrent:

New York Times Bestsellers-May 5 2013-P2P

>Will I go to Heaven if Hell if I download an ebook for free?

Grow up.

>>3726325
I will never give a dime to such a thing.

Thus they will have nothing to sell.

>>3722984
>You now realize that a great number of readers have a page turning function.

My own novel isnt DRM protected and sooner you realize it will be pirated, the better.

What is piracy anyway? If you give books youve read to your brother/sister/parents/friends ... is that pirating? 2 read, 1 payed...

books live by how many people know about them. so even pirated ones dont really hurt, i guess.. not everyone who pirates it would have bought it, anyway.

I think of it as just another form of advertisement

If you're neet, you won't care if you're pirated, you just want to be famous.

>>3726242
>you'd understand that many people find things beautiful despite not falling in line with what is declared to be so by the culture industry. Just because many people's tastes are unrecognizable to you doesn't mean they're stifled or not present.
That has nothing to do with my post, whatsoever. I never implied that anyone had an inability to recognize beauty and I definitively did not imply that there is a specific definition of beauty that I judge other people by, because that's fucking retarded.

You can call me an inexperienced child all you like, but know what the fuck I'm saying first.

I pirate based on availability and comfort. Classics--no one would buy those when Gutenberg offers them so freely.

Some books aren't just avaiable in digital format. Like The Dark angel by Mika waltari which I've been looking for for a while.

I don't believe in morality anyway, so yeah, it's okay.

>>3726561
hero, an

>>3726575
u mad, bro? lol, le epic troll

I have a lot of pirated books, but I realised that I hate reading on a computer screen; I find it very difficult to concentrate and so I went back to buying paperbacks, and now I can't stop; I'm buying them faster than I can read them.

>>3726596
lel le le le

>>3726266
>>3726263

This,
Blame the uploader for the crime. Not the downloader.

Somebody steals a shitload of cookies and gives them away free to everybody, Are we supposed to blame the people who took a cookie.

"But-But they're willingly participating!! With the cookies at least they can feign ignorance."

Yada Yada. You'll notice how anti-piracy advocates always waffle between things being "about the facts of the matter" when it suits them, but "about the principle of the thing" when it's inconvenient/

>>3726325
I have no moral problem with copying.
Stealing that leaves the original there?

>>3726853
Why do you have no moral problem with it?

Why is it illegal then?

For video games, if everyone pirated them then none of the big publishers would pay to produce new games...

How easy is it to steal from B&N? Do they actively look out for people walking out with unpaid books? I know I'm being a huge pussy, I'm just too beta to keep my composure and make up an excuse if I get caught.

>>3727256
Oh, are you just finding out that morals and laws are different things?

>>3727271
Not just, no. But why are they different?

>>3727259
Why don't you just buy them used, or borrow them from a library?

Except of course text books. Those should be stolen by the truck load since the publishers over price them so much.

>>3723945
this. I pirate everything media related.
If it's not available and if it is likely it won't be in the near future I buy it, but it hurts...

>>3727274
Because human nature is complex, multifaceted. It would be hard for law to be made efficiently to respond in real time with real problems even if it wasn't subject to the forces of corruption.

>>3727256
>Why is it illegal then?
Because rich people don't like making less money, and they don't like the opportunities it makes for other people.