4 ms·

At this point is worth noting that there are reputable sources for free books, such as public libraries and Project Gutenberg. I realize that neither source wi

by II2II 4y ago

At this point is worth noting that there are reputable sources for free books, such as public libraries and Project Gutenberg. I realize that neither source will satisfy many of the people on HN, simply because there is a need for current technical books.

harry8 4y ago
What on earth does "reputable" mean here? Total compliance with the regulatory capture of publishing companies? Full support of the landgrab claims of the Disney corporation et al? You don't have to be an anarchist to look at the status quo and think some amount of civil disobedience is the correct, proper and right thing to do. Also believing that a claim, fully Disney supported, that such an amount of civil disobedience is somehow ethically evil is, in fact, somewhat disreputable. As disreputable as the insanely high journal subscription fees for taxpayer funded research, for example. The publishing companies chose this path willingly and with prejudice for their profit turning the relevant law against the people. Are they reputable given they did so? It's hardly an outlying position around here to think they really aren't anything of the sort. Refusing to accept that on mass, until appropriate reform is supported and enacted could be considered quite worthwhile. You may of course, disagree.
- pnutjam 4y ago
  IRC, ebook highway.
  - Tepix 4y ago
    Might as well link the guide: https://www.reddit.com/r/Piracy/comments/2oftbu/guide_the_idiot_proof_guide_to_downloading_ebooks/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Piracy/comments/2oftbu/guide_the_id...
- II2II 4y ago
  Not all authors and not all publishers are alike. It is easy to cherry pick a few very bad apples, like Disney (especially since much of their success can be attributed to retelling stories from the public domain) or those who are actively anti-library (from the perspective of property rights, at the level of a physical book or purchased ebook - not the right to make and distribute copies). On the other hand you also have authors who have reasonable views of copyright and even give away their books. You also have publishers who are willing to have their books lent by libraries or don't place artificial restrictions on consumers when it comes to ebooks. Of course, access to publicly funded research is another issue altogether (and one that should consider patents as well as copyrights). The question becomes, how many of those targets of "civil disobedience" have earned that privilege and how many are simply collateral damage? Also, ideally, civil disobedience should be aimed towards changing laws rather than people simply taking what they want.
  - harry8 4y ago
    This is exactly backwards. If you accept some amount of civil disobedience is justifiable then you can't very well go and say anyone "infringing copyright" is "disreputable." I said "some amount" and you don't disagree. We're not discussing what that precise amount is or how it should be targeted, that's a different discussion and can be framed in multiple, competing ways. Feel free to lay out what you think is the correct amount and correctly targeted but even if you are wildly wrong in your thoughts, your being wrong doesn't make anyone else with differing thoughts about that amount and targeting disreputable, even if they are for some other reason. There is a legitimate argument that the law should always be followed and any law-breaking is inherently disreputable. It's not my argument although I acknowledge it and isn't fashionable nowadays given how that must be applied to, for example, the civil rights movement & Dr King.

by II2II 4y ago

harry8 4y ago

What on earth does "reputable" mean here? Total compliance with the regulatory capture of publishing companies? Full support of the landgrab claims of the Disney corporation et al? You don't have to be an anarchist to look at the status quo and think some amount of civil disobedience is the correct, proper and right thing to do. Also believing that a claim, fully Disney supported, that such an amount of civil disobedience is somehow ethically evil is, in fact, somewhat disreputable. As disreputable as the insanely high journal subscription fees for taxpayer funded research, for example. The publishing companies chose this path willingly and with prejudice for their profit turning the relevant law against the people. Are they reputable given they did so? It's hardly an outlying position around here to think they really aren't anything of the sort. Refusing to accept that on mass, until appropriate reform is supported and enacted could be considered quite worthwhile. You may of course, disagree.

pnutjam 4y ago
IRC, ebook highway.
- Tepix 4y ago
  Might as well link the guide: https://www.reddit.com/r/Piracy/comments/2oftbu/guide_the_idiot_proof_guide_to_downloading_ebooks/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Piracy/comments/2oftbu/guide_the_id...
II2II 4y ago
Not all authors and not all publishers are alike. It is easy to cherry pick a few very bad apples, like Disney (especially since much of their success can be attributed to retelling stories from the public domain) or those who are actively anti-library (from the perspective of property rights, at the level of a physical book or purchased ebook - not the right to make and distribute copies). On the other hand you also have authors who have reasonable views of copyright and even give away their books. You also have publishers who are willing to have their books lent by libraries or don't place artificial restrictions on consumers when it comes to ebooks. Of course, access to publicly funded research is another issue altogether (and one that should consider patents as well as copyrights). The question becomes, how many of those targets of "civil disobedience" have earned that privilege and how many are simply collateral damage? Also, ideally, civil disobedience should be aimed towards changing laws rather than people simply taking what they want.
- harry8 4y ago
  This is exactly backwards. If you accept some amount of civil disobedience is justifiable then you can't very well go and say anyone "infringing copyright" is "disreputable." I said "some amount" and you don't disagree. We're not discussing what that precise amount is or how it should be targeted, that's a different discussion and can be framed in multiple, competing ways. Feel free to lay out what you think is the correct amount and correctly targeted but even if you are wildly wrong in your thoughts, your being wrong doesn't make anyone else with differing thoughts about that amount and targeting disreputable, even if they are for some other reason. There is a legitimate argument that the law should always be followed and any law-breaking is inherently disreputable. It's not my argument although I acknowledge it and isn't fashionable nowadays given how that must be applied to, for example, the civil rights movement & Dr King.