/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2566297]

>books cost between 10-20 dollars
>reading 100 hundred books will cost over a grand
>become a pirate
>implying pirating is why there are no more worthy authors
>implying there aren't more than enough classics to keep me occupied for an entire lifetime
I don't even know where I'm going with this, whatever, a pirate's life is the life for me

[Anonymous No.2566302]

I've never paid more than 6 dollars for a book (barring textbooks, of course). I usually pay between 1-3. Shop better.

[Anonymous No.2566306]

>>2566302
I'm not going to spend my days digging around a used book store

[Anonymous No.2566309]

>>2566306

Nigga, use your tools. We ain't cave niggas no more.

http://www.bookfinder.com/

Shiet.

[Anonymous No.2566310]

Last I checked, libraries were still a thing.

[Anonymous No.2566311]

>>2566309
Well, that is helpful

I'm still pirating anyways

[Anonymous No.2566319]

>>2566310
Not for long.

>Republican rubbing hands together menacingly

[Anonymous No.2566325]

>>2566319
Not all libraries are government-funded.

[Anonymous No.2566330]

>>2566325
but most are. Feel free to quibble over it though.

[▒ R E I ▒ !Ry9ZOO5Ag. No.2566336]

CONSUMING MEDIA WITHOUT PAYING IS NOT BEING A "PIRATE".

A "PIRATE" IS A PERSON WHO UPLOADS, TRADES, IMPORTS, EXPORTS MEDIA SO OTHER PERSONS [CONSUMERS] CAN CONSUME THAT MEDIA.

[Anonymous No.2566353]

when you can go to a library and check a book out for free,

when you can go to a used book store and buy the same book for a dollar, and that dollar goes ONLY to the used book store and not to benefit the creators of the book at all,

while I can acknowledge that book piracy is an illegal act, I believe there is no effective difference between piracy and legal, free acquisition of the same content.

[Anonymous No.2566357]

Go the library. Get it for 4 bucks on Amazon. Way to rationalize faggot.

[Anonymous No.2566381]

I salute you OP, intellectual property rights are 75% bullshit anyways, especially in non-creative subjects.

[Anonymous No.2566391]

Move to New York. We have 3 of the largest public library systems in the United States.

[Anonymous No.2566429]

>>2566336
No, a pirate is someone who robs ships on the high seas.

[OP_Art_a_Fahjot No.2567561]

>>2566302
Pay? Why? There's thing called the Library... and if you read my next response

>>2566297
Investing 15 books worth into technology will save you easily hundreds of thousands in buying books. Every classic copyright free book is available pretty much everywhere for FREE.

You don't get the pleasure of buying book shelves, having to organize your personal library.. but really, do you care colour the car that gets you to work is as long as it gets you there?

[OP_Art_a_Fahjot No.2567563]

>>2566381
True enough, but if I like a book, I'll buy it. Piracy is well and good if the item is junk, but if you enjoy it you should support the work.

It's the same for music/movies etc.

The try-before-you-buy thing works, Louis CK proved it.

[Anonymous No.2567570]

>reading 100 hundred books will cost over a grand
>100 hundred

looooooooooooool

[Anonymous No.2567576]

I go to thrift stores, charity shops, second hand bookshops (especially those in university districts)
I rarely pay more than £5 for a books
50p - £1.50 in poor places
£10 at the most of rare and old manuscripts

[OP_Art_a_Fahjot No.2567635]

>>2567570
100 hundred... 10,000?
Even at 10 cents a book that's still not cheap.

[Anonymous No.2567702]

Copyright monopoly is hurtful to society. There is nothing wrong with breaking the laws in that department. If one wants to know more about copyright monopoly, one can start here:
http://falkvinge.net/2011/02/01/history-of-copyright-part-1-black-death/
It's an online 7-part history of copyright monopoly.

Of course, generally one should just read Falkvinge if one is interested in infopolitics.

[OP_Art_a_Fahjot No.2567716]

>>2567702
Wasn't copyright originally 40 years?

The other thing, I thought the US didn't observe British copyright until 1997 or something. I'm not okay with perpetual copyright (agreed, it hurts creativity), but printing and profiting from someone else's work without paying for it is plain thievery...

[Anonymous No.2567722]

>>2567716
>Wasn't copyright originally 40 years?

No. Read a history of copyright. I linked to one. I can mention a book if you like.

-
>The other thing, I thought the US didn't observe British copyright until 1997 or something. I'm not okay with perpetual copyright (agreed, it hurts creativity), but printing and profiting from someone else's work without paying for it is plain thievery...

You are again wrong.

And no, commercial copyright infringement is not thievery. It may be wrong (I'm not so sure that it always is), but it is not thievery/stealing. You need to stop listening to copyright industry propaganda.

[Anonymous No.2567728]

>>2567722
Ya its strange how you have these liberals going we need regulation to stop monopolies, and then on the other hand they see nothing wrong with copyrights.

[Anonymous No.2567741]

>>2566297
what kind of books are you reading that they cost you $20 for a single book op?

>that feel when you hate to read books on a computer screen so you dont pirate them.

>that feel when i dont want to buy a e-reader even though i should.

[Anonymous No.2567763]

When I read threads like this, and compare them to other threads such as "How much do your parents make in a year" and it turns out a suprisingly large portion of you are upper middle class, I see red. I can understand lower middle class pirating, but otherwise, you're just scum.

[Anonymous No.2567861]

>>2567763