3 ms·

I don't understand why users would voluntarily move away from piracy. I prefer "you can't do anything about it" to "please let us." Why the norm, base line expe

I don't understand why users would voluntarily move away from piracy. I prefer "you can't do anything about it" to "please let us." Why the norm, base line expectation of the end user is not identity obfuscation and free access to information without hindrance I just don't get.

endisneigh 4y ago
You could say the same about stealing physical books.
- alwayslikethis 4y ago
  Stealing physical books deprives the owner their right to the book. Copying a digital book only "deprives" the "owner" a right to control its distribution. It's not nearly the same thing. Whereas ownership of physical items is permanent to ensure society would function, the right to control distribution is a concession we make to authors to allow them to make a profit. In our era, this is so ridiculously abused that it is fine to take back some of it. For example, the author should be entitled to the right of controlling copying if he action intends to distribute copies. If book is out of print because the author decides it is not profitable, then the right should go back to us.
- wilsonnb3 4y ago
  How many times must we have the discussion about the differences between stealing a physical item and copying a digital one?
  - endisneigh 4y ago
    It’s not the same, but the OP is talking about free access to information. So under that logic stealing the physical book is fine. Or I can amend my original comment and say stealing the physical book, creating a copy using a commodity printer and leaving the copy, while keeping the original, is fine.
    - friend_and_foe 4y ago
      Why "leaving the copy whole keeping the original"? If the issue here is theft of information, than keeping the copy and leaving the original is just as bad, no? Why make that meaningless distinction in your point? Theyre equivalent, according to you.
      - endisneigh 4y ago
        Yes, under the original logic following the great parent post.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- gaganyaan 4y ago
  Please don't. ChatGPT has enough incoherent garbage to train on already. It doesn't need more training data.
icelancer 4y ago
Because people are not good at using the Internet or technology and just want to click on links.
- ImaCake 4y ago
  Libgen is not particularly difficult to navigate, although its bare bones which makes it look intimidating. The real problem is some hosts are clearly trying to get me to download viruses.
- friend_and_foe 4y ago
  I'm not convinced. Before smartphones and the like, people used Gnutella and ICQ. We live in a world of telephone numbers, social security numbers, credit card numbers, top level domains, maybe your average Joe can't program a computer but he can definitely install Tor browser and a BitTorrent client. I think the problem is that the produce the end user gets are delivered as a business case through a funnel, and people don't realize that the relationship is fundamentally adversarial. What just boggles my mind is how people just accept it without any sort of rebellion or self interest.
  - zarzavat 4y ago
    In the 2000s, using P2P was very common because the alternative was ripping CDs or spending $$$ on the iTunes Store for DRMed music. People were also not connected all the time so it made sense to download and store your music on an iPod or similar. In the late 2000s Spotify arrived, it was much easier than piracy, and not as expensive as the iTunes Store, although still DRMed. At the same time, Apple introduced the iPhone and people gradually stopped using computers so much and started using smartphones more. And on smartphones you couldn’t install whatever software you wanted. Many younger people today in the west have no experience of piracy at all. They live on their phones in a fully corporatized environment.
alwayslikethis 4y ago
I like IA for what it is, but I would prefer a more hardline stance like this too. However, there is a place for an organization like this to attract good will. It would be much better to just have a backroom deal between IA and libgen to upload everything it have there in a plausibly deniable way, though.

endisneigh 4y ago

You could say the same about stealing physical books.

alwayslikethis 4y ago
Stealing physical books deprives the owner their right to the book. Copying a digital book only "deprives" the "owner" a right to control its distribution. It's not nearly the same thing. Whereas ownership of physical items is permanent to ensure society would function, the right to control distribution is a concession we make to authors to allow them to make a profit. In our era, this is so ridiculously abused that it is fine to take back some of it. For example, the author should be entitled to the right of controlling copying if he action intends to distribute copies. If book is out of print because the author decides it is not profitable, then the right should go back to us.
wilsonnb3 4y ago
How many times must we have the discussion about the differences between stealing a physical item and copying a digital one?
- endisneigh 4y ago
  It’s not the same, but the OP is talking about free access to information. So under that logic stealing the physical book is fine. Or I can amend my original comment and say stealing the physical book, creating a copy using a commodity printer and leaving the copy, while keeping the original, is fine.
  - friend_and_foe 4y ago
    Why "leaving the copy whole keeping the original"? If the issue here is theft of information, than keeping the copy and leaving the original is just as bad, no? Why make that meaningless distinction in your point? Theyre equivalent, according to you.
    - endisneigh 4y ago
      Yes, under the original logic following the great parent post.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
gaganyaan 4y ago
Please don't. ChatGPT has enough incoherent garbage to train on already. It doesn't need more training data.

icelancer 4y ago

Because people are not good at using the Internet or technology and just want to click on links.

ImaCake 4y ago
Libgen is not particularly difficult to navigate, although its bare bones which makes it look intimidating. The real problem is some hosts are clearly trying to get me to download viruses.
friend_and_foe 4y ago
I'm not convinced. Before smartphones and the like, people used Gnutella and ICQ. We live in a world of telephone numbers, social security numbers, credit card numbers, top level domains, maybe your average Joe can't program a computer but he can definitely install Tor browser and a BitTorrent client. I think the problem is that the produce the end user gets are delivered as a business case through a funnel, and people don't realize that the relationship is fundamentally adversarial. What just boggles my mind is how people just accept it without any sort of rebellion or self interest.
- zarzavat 4y ago
  In the 2000s, using P2P was very common because the alternative was ripping CDs or spending $$$ on the iTunes Store for DRMed music. People were also not connected all the time so it made sense to download and store your music on an iPod or similar. In the late 2000s Spotify arrived, it was much easier than piracy, and not as expensive as the iTunes Store, although still DRMed. At the same time, Apple introduced the iPhone and people gradually stopped using computers so much and started using smartphones more. And on smartphones you couldn’t install whatever software you wanted. Many younger people today in the west have no experience of piracy at all. They live on their phones in a fully corporatized environment.

alwayslikethis 4y ago

I like IA for what it is, but I would prefer a more hardline stance like this too. However, there is a place for an organization like this to attract good will. It would be much better to just have a backroom deal between IA and libgen to upload everything it have there in a plausibly deniable way, though.