6 ms·

A long time ago, Karsten Self did a stock demand curve analysis of software piracy: http://linuxmafia.com/~karsten/Rants/piracy.html http://linuxmafia.com/~ka

A long time ago, Karsten Self did a stock demand curve analysis of software piracy: http://linuxmafia.com/~karsten/Rants/piracy.html http://linuxmafia.com/~karsten/Rants/piracy.html Turns out that software piracy keeps prices lower. As consumers, we are regularly told that price of goods or services is absolutely all that matters. Therefore, why should consumers care of some pirated books appear on Amazon?

teddyh 4y ago
> why should consumers care of some pirated books appear on Amazon? Because pirated books are almost always of markedly lower quality, whereas pirated software is (almost always) functionally equivalent to (or better than) the non-pirated software.
- paulryanrogers 4y ago
  Except when pirated software includes malware or excludes assets to save space.
  - teddyh 4y ago
    True, but does that happen in any regularity even close to approaching the regularity of bad-quality pirated books? People often say that pirated software has malware, but I liken it to people saying that you can’t trust Wikipedia; i.e. it’s most often false.
    - toss1 4y ago
      It certainly happens with enough regularity to create and maintain a reputation for pirated software often-enough being compromised with malware that it is not worth the risk. The fact that you have both a low-enough risk profile, and exceptional skills to minimize both the incoming risks and the consequences of a problem, does not mean that it is not or should not be a factor for others who have higher risk profiles and lower skills. I am an actual case in point. Former CTO of several successful software/SAAS companies, now working in manufacturing, including on DOD projects. I could probably make use of some software that is $6-figures/seat, and it'd be fun to try out pirated copies since my small company can't justify that expense. But probably over a decade ago, I did encounter some malware from a download; handled it without a disaster, but it was a significant waste of time and resources. Since then, my observations of even the regular 'legit' software download services (freeware/shareware/trials, even used as official sites by some software authors), is that they look substantially less-well maintained and more 'scammy' than ever. Even if it isn't outright malware, but merely adware that comes along for the ride, I'm out. Considering the risk of everything from malware to ransomware, to potential exfiltration of even encrypted-on-disk CUI (Confidential Unclassified Information, a new level of information control), I'm extremely wary about any software download, repeatedly check that it is coming directly from the vendor (certs, keys, checksums, etc.). Again, I'm someone with a somewhat elevated risk profile, but also the (rusty) skills to deal with it, and I legitimately consider it a non-trivial risk. The vast majority of the user population has negative skills to deal with it despite their lower risk profile. Stop trying to make pirated downloads look like a legitimate and safe option. They are not. Although vendors are extremely foolish and shortsighted to not make available extended trials, you are still taking something from the owner without permission, and unless you know of some service that is actually 100% effective at scanning for malware, including 0-days and all the morphing/encrypted/etc. malware techniques, it is still a real risk (and if you do know of such a service, let us know about it, and how you have vetted their reliability).
    - zirgs 4y ago
      Ransomware was pretty much non-existent before cryptocurrencies were invented. This is why I will never run *.exe files from shady torrent/crack sites. The risk is simply too high.
      - tough 4y ago
        Can also happen on mac nowadays
cstross 4y ago
> why should consumers care of some pirated books appear on Amazon? Speaking as an author: because I write for a living, and if I can't earn a living at this I'll have to find some other job, which will cause me to stop writing. Piracy is directly rivalrous for the author's revenue-earning product. (Libraries are less so insofar as Public Lending Right and royalties on library editions cause some money to go to the authors.) Remember, authors are not film studios or rock groups. We don't have merchandising opportunities, we don't perform live for a ticket fee, and we're mostly very small-scale sole trader businesses. Our revenue comes 100% from sales of our books, unlike bands (who make peanuts from streaming but are paid to tour) or film studios (lots of spin-off merchandise). (Median income for full time novelists working in the UK, per the ALCS in 2022, was around £7000 a year. A tiny handful make millions, a large number are hobbyists doing it in their spare time for pin money, a small number of us earn a middle class income -- not management level, not even programmer or web developer level. It doesn't take much to tip us from "just getting by" to "giving up, have to go stack shelves in a supermarket" territory.)
- cjbgkagh 4y ago
  It quasi surprises how pro-piracy hacker news is, probably in large part due to need to minimize their own guilt from their own piracy. Maybe there is a socialist bent with the belief that if there was no money novelists and artisan software craftsmen could produce for the love of it. It seems that only SaaS products are acceptable but then hackernews also hates subscriptions...
  - xhkkffbf 4y ago
    Some people will reflexively mod down anything that's pro-artist or pro-writer. They continue to embrace the idea that somehow piracy is somehow a good thing when it's pretty easy to see how it hurts.
  - cronix 4y ago
    Many of us probably actually discovered what we wanted to do for a living by being able to use all sorts of software that was way more expensive than we could afford as a teen, which eventually led to buying the software. I am thoroughly against pirating things you are making money off of, but more lenient on personal use/exploration/learning. If there was something akin to a public library full of the worlds commercial software for people to discover, explore and play with, I would have done that as that's where I was getting most of the books from that I was using to learn all of this complex software, like the $18,000 Alias|Wavefront 3D software, back then.
mistrial9 4y ago
you are describing the point of view of the market manager, whose wish is to make profit and keep the (relative) peace. Brand protection is a different concern, a concern of many participants, not the manager. Brand integrity is a way for consumers to find quality or other attributes reliably. Brand building is a real way to build wealth for those seeking to do business in the market. These positions are fragile and rely on some amount of enforcement by the market managers. This point of view is similar to many professions who deal with large volumes of the population, and when some of them become ill, suffer, have losses or disappointment, the response is "the market is healthy. To make an omelette you have to break a few eggs. What business is it of mine if people buy fake products?"
dahart 4y ago
> why should consumers care of some pirated books appear on Amazon? As the article demonstrates, when the quality is extremely low, the consumers suffer. Also, in this case, the price of the pirated books is the same as the price of the authentic books, so this is not a good demonstration of Karsten’s armchair economic theory of software piracy. In this case, the consumer loses and the real authors & publishers lose, while these fraudulent middle-men, the fake publishers and Amazon, pocket the difference in price. This is bad for the consumer and bad for the economy, in addition to being illegal. Your question implicitly is asking why we even have Copyright Law and/or the Berne Convention, which is something that has a long a rich history. I don’t feel like we need to justify the existence of copy rights. There’s a rich debate on how long copyright should last and what the limits should be, but very few people suggesting we should just get rid of it completely and allow the pirates to flourish.
- candiodari 4y ago
  How does this work? There's plenty of books this is tested on: out of copyright works. And there's indeed a great variety of quality available on those books. Great and very bad. Consumers don't suffer because of this, at least I don't, in fact I've recently discovered a bunch of out-of-print out-of-copyright mathematical works that are so much better. Also I got pirated Anthony Horowitz books (I have the originals, but 30 year old book and all. Plus it's in the attic), that are much better than the originals at this point. The thing is when it comes to actually making texts and culture available, libraries and librarians (and archive.org), and indeed piracy are generally the highest available quality. Why? Because there's no alternative. Once 2 or 3 years pass, copyright owners forget 99% of their stuff and just refuse to make it available. Expected profit is just too low (this goes 10x against publishers, who often take books out of print against the wishes of authors). So libraries are the only quality available, and I much prefer that over the black hole copyright owners present ...
  - dahart 4y ago
    I’m not sure I understand your question, but works that are out of copyright aren’t relevant to the reasons that copyright exists, or to the fact that Amazon is allowing fake publishers to undercut legitimate publishers with extremely low-quality copies. Copyright grants a time-limited monopoly to the reproduction of works by their authors. The idea is not that the economy benefits from protection forever, but that the authors have enough time to recoup their costs before the works become public. Many people (me included) think copyright terms are too long, but here we are discussing the idea that the term length should be zero, which I speculate most people would agree is too short. Having the economic incentive to produce good works is important to our economy, and if works can be stolen and faked immediately and the authors can’t profit from them, there is no incentive to make good things. I guess to clarify… the quality of a reproduction hurts consumers when the quality is lower than the authentic original, like the case of the Amazon books in this article. But generally speaking, quality isn’t super high on the list of reasons for copyrights, or on the broader economic arguments. The primary reason, it is argued, that fakes and copying hurts consumers is because it’s a drain on the economic incentives for creative and productive people to author new works.
cjbgkagh 4y ago
I used to make software for the masses but it was pirated to the point that the business wasn't viable. I had to switch to a very expensive small niche. While pirating is still rampant it's a niche where I can effectively sue so I can make sure at least my biggest customers keep paying which is enough to keep the business afloat. A lot of goods simply will not be produced at any price if piracy keeps producers out of the market.
- zirgs 4y ago
  How do you explain open source software then? Why is Linux still being developed?
  - looping__lui 4y ago
    It might be tied to scenarios where the engineers producing said piece of software expected no compensation whatsoever (more or less).
  - shjake 4y ago
    Direct or indirect support from various corporations generally.
    - zirgs 4y ago
      So it turns out that you can actually make money if you offer source code for free. Epic Games earn billions with their Unreal Engine and Fortnite and they aren't afraid of pirates.
      - shjake 4y ago
        They earn a lot from Fortnite sure. Unreal engine is not technically open source, I’m aware that their revenue from it is that significant compared to Fortnite and they make money by taking a share of revenue from it’s users. Not sure how all of that is relevant for open source though . IBM/Red Hat, Google or even Oracle would be much better examples
ThrowawayR2 4y ago
I have always suspected that the variety of pro-piracy posters on HN probably have no qualms about violating the GPL or other FOSS licenses either. It would be logically consistent at least.
- pierat 4y ago
  It's funny you say that, but it was Linux that really got me to double down on actual piracy. I tried to get a Netflix subscription. For a long while, nope. Wouldn't work. Even now, Paramount streaming specifically excludes Linux. Theyll gladly take your money, though. Oh, and it works for chrome and android, of which the second is Linux. The people who actually try to buy and pay distributors/creators get screwed time and again. I further refuse to take part in getting screwed again. Or take the Microsoft Zune. Anyone who bought music there ended up buying void after they arbitrarily shut the auth servers down. Cause, uhh, Microsoft couldn't afford a few auth servers? And their sharing added in illegal DRM, especially if I was playing CC tracks that expressly forbid that. (And of course, the irony that MS is part of the business software alliance, with heavy draconian hands of licenses and copyright.... All the while pirating and breaking GPL with copilot. And you want US to respect you? QED: fuck off, MS) There's the whole DVD debacle with deCSS. Whereas with Linux and the FLOSS ecosystem, I do recognize that fellow creators are being ethical, and giving for the cost of "follow my license if you use code". And there's no spyware, DRM, or other harmful stuff. Sure, there's bad actors.... But those bad actors are usually companies like Microsoft who pilfer all our code for their benefit and profit (Copilot). Tit for tat is the best game theory solution so far. And given how many times I've been screwed over by media companies arbitrarily revoking first-sale doctrine because it was really a rental... That means I'll "pierat" my media. I've paid enough. And I will help others free of charge do the same. I guess to look at my views, it really is anti-commercial and pro-FLOSS. And having copyright rules different for the rest of us versus the big media also colors my judgement. (And my last 3 projects were aGPL3, precisely to keep companies from _aaS my software without contributing back.)
- kmeisthax 4y ago
  No, there's a lot of people here angry at GitHub for making a code-writing tool that occasionally launders GPL code. To actually violate the GPL requires at least some effort towards locking the system down. If you just torrent some Linux ISOs, they either contain source, links to source, or that weird written offer thing that GPLv2 wanted. You'd have to actually remove those in order to violate GPL. Pirates would not be happy with you for doing this. It's also important to note that there's a bit of a difference between different kinds of piracy, and they have different mentalities. You have the FTP topsite scene users, then P2P users, then people trying to resell copyrighted material for money. The first two are more aligned with either "we don't like copyright, period" or "we like downloading free shit", which makes them either aligned with or neutral to the FOSS community. The latter group does not care, they just want a quick way to make a buck. If they couldn't resell other people's books on Amazon, they'd probably be committing some other kind of cybercrime.
bryanrasmussen 4y ago
software piracy has two effects - it keeps prices lower and it helps spread the purchase of legal licenses of software. It helps spread the legal license of software because by using illegal software you learn how to use it and when you get to a job you ask your employer for a version of the software you are familiar with, or because others need to buy software to interop with your illegal software. There is not really any reason to suppose that pirated books help the sale of real books in a similar manner.
turnsout 4y ago
I bought a technical book from Amazon recently, and it looks extremely legit. However, when I got to Chapter 4, only the sidebars and titles were printed—not the main text. The pirates had some kind of typesetting error, and a whole chapter was borked. So not only do I feel duped that I gave the scammers money, I had to rebuy the book (more carefully this time).
tracker1 4y ago
I'm not sure most people would care if not for the quality issues. Big surprise, someone willing to rip off someone else's work is also going to cut corners to make a product so inferior as to be practically useless. Until, or unless it starts actually and materially affecting Amazon's bottom line, I doubt they'll do anything significant about anything. They're the 800lb gorilla and will survive for decades just on entropy at this point.

teddyh 4y ago

> why should consumers care of some pirated books appear on Amazon? Because pirated books are almost always of markedly lower quality, whereas pirated software is (almost always) functionally equivalent to (or better than) the non-pirated software.

paulryanrogers 4y ago
Except when pirated software includes malware or excludes assets to save space.
- teddyh 4y ago
  True, but does that happen in any regularity even close to approaching the regularity of bad-quality pirated books? People often say that pirated software has malware, but I liken it to people saying that you can’t trust Wikipedia; i.e. it’s most often false.
  - toss1 4y ago
    It certainly happens with enough regularity to create and maintain a reputation for pirated software often-enough being compromised with malware that it is not worth the risk. The fact that you have both a low-enough risk profile, and exceptional skills to minimize both the incoming risks and the consequences of a problem, does not mean that it is not or should not be a factor for others who have higher risk profiles and lower skills. I am an actual case in point. Former CTO of several successful software/SAAS companies, now working in manufacturing, including on DOD projects. I could probably make use of some software that is $6-figures/seat, and it'd be fun to try out pirated copies since my small company can't justify that expense. But probably over a decade ago, I did encounter some malware from a download; handled it without a disaster, but it was a significant waste of time and resources. Since then, my observations of even the regular 'legit' software download services (freeware/shareware/trials, even used as official sites by some software authors), is that they look substantially less-well maintained and more 'scammy' than ever. Even if it isn't outright malware, but merely adware that comes along for the ride, I'm out. Considering the risk of everything from malware to ransomware, to potential exfiltration of even encrypted-on-disk CUI (Confidential Unclassified Information, a new level of information control), I'm extremely wary about any software download, repeatedly check that it is coming directly from the vendor (certs, keys, checksums, etc.). Again, I'm someone with a somewhat elevated risk profile, but also the (rusty) skills to deal with it, and I legitimately consider it a non-trivial risk. The vast majority of the user population has negative skills to deal with it despite their lower risk profile. Stop trying to make pirated downloads look like a legitimate and safe option. They are not. Although vendors are extremely foolish and shortsighted to not make available extended trials, you are still taking something from the owner without permission, and unless you know of some service that is actually 100% effective at scanning for malware, including 0-days and all the morphing/encrypted/etc. malware techniques, it is still a real risk (and if you do know of such a service, let us know about it, and how you have vetted their reliability).
  - zirgs 4y ago
    Ransomware was pretty much non-existent before cryptocurrencies were invented. This is why I will never run *.exe files from shady torrent/crack sites. The risk is simply too high.
    - tough 4y ago
      Can also happen on mac nowadays

cstross 4y ago

> why should consumers care of some pirated books appear on Amazon? Speaking as an author: because I write for a living, and if I can't earn a living at this I'll have to find some other job, which will cause me to stop writing. Piracy is directly rivalrous for the author's revenue-earning product. (Libraries are less so insofar as Public Lending Right and royalties on library editions cause some money to go to the authors.) Remember, authors are not film studios or rock groups. We don't have merchandising opportunities, we don't perform live for a ticket fee, and we're mostly very small-scale sole trader businesses. Our revenue comes 100% from sales of our books, unlike bands (who make peanuts from streaming but are paid to tour) or film studios (lots of spin-off merchandise). (Median income for full time novelists working in the UK, per the ALCS in 2022, was around £7000 a year. A tiny handful make millions, a large number are hobbyists doing it in their spare time for pin money, a small number of us earn a middle class income -- not management level, not even programmer or web developer level. It doesn't take much to tip us from "just getting by" to "giving up, have to go stack shelves in a supermarket" territory.)

cjbgkagh 4y ago
It quasi surprises how pro-piracy hacker news is, probably in large part due to need to minimize their own guilt from their own piracy. Maybe there is a socialist bent with the belief that if there was no money novelists and artisan software craftsmen could produce for the love of it. It seems that only SaaS products are acceptable but then hackernews also hates subscriptions...
- xhkkffbf 4y ago
  Some people will reflexively mod down anything that's pro-artist or pro-writer. They continue to embrace the idea that somehow piracy is somehow a good thing when it's pretty easy to see how it hurts.
- cronix 4y ago
  Many of us probably actually discovered what we wanted to do for a living by being able to use all sorts of software that was way more expensive than we could afford as a teen, which eventually led to buying the software. I am thoroughly against pirating things you are making money off of, but more lenient on personal use/exploration/learning. If there was something akin to a public library full of the worlds commercial software for people to discover, explore and play with, I would have done that as that's where I was getting most of the books from that I was using to learn all of this complex software, like the $18,000 Alias|Wavefront 3D software, back then.

mistrial9 4y ago

you are describing the point of view of the market manager, whose wish is to make profit and keep the (relative) peace. Brand protection is a different concern, a concern of many participants, not the manager. Brand integrity is a way for consumers to find quality or other attributes reliably. Brand building is a real way to build wealth for those seeking to do business in the market. These positions are fragile and rely on some amount of enforcement by the market managers. This point of view is similar to many professions who deal with large volumes of the population, and when some of them become ill, suffer, have losses or disappointment, the response is "the market is healthy. To make an omelette you have to break a few eggs. What business is it of mine if people buy fake products?"

dahart 4y ago

> why should consumers care of some pirated books appear on Amazon? As the article demonstrates, when the quality is extremely low, the consumers suffer. Also, in this case, the price of the pirated books is the same as the price of the authentic books, so this is not a good demonstration of Karsten’s armchair economic theory of software piracy. In this case, the consumer loses and the real authors & publishers lose, while these fraudulent middle-men, the fake publishers and Amazon, pocket the difference in price. This is bad for the consumer and bad for the economy, in addition to being illegal. Your question implicitly is asking why we even have Copyright Law and/or the Berne Convention, which is something that has a long a rich history. I don’t feel like we need to justify the existence of copy rights. There’s a rich debate on how long copyright should last and what the limits should be, but very few people suggesting we should just get rid of it completely and allow the pirates to flourish.

candiodari 4y ago
How does this work? There's plenty of books this is tested on: out of copyright works. And there's indeed a great variety of quality available on those books. Great and very bad. Consumers don't suffer because of this, at least I don't, in fact I've recently discovered a bunch of out-of-print out-of-copyright mathematical works that are so much better. Also I got pirated Anthony Horowitz books (I have the originals, but 30 year old book and all. Plus it's in the attic), that are much better than the originals at this point. The thing is when it comes to actually making texts and culture available, libraries and librarians (and archive.org), and indeed piracy are generally the highest available quality. Why? Because there's no alternative. Once 2 or 3 years pass, copyright owners forget 99% of their stuff and just refuse to make it available. Expected profit is just too low (this goes 10x against publishers, who often take books out of print against the wishes of authors). So libraries are the only quality available, and I much prefer that over the black hole copyright owners present ...
- dahart 4y ago
  I’m not sure I understand your question, but works that are out of copyright aren’t relevant to the reasons that copyright exists, or to the fact that Amazon is allowing fake publishers to undercut legitimate publishers with extremely low-quality copies. Copyright grants a time-limited monopoly to the reproduction of works by their authors. The idea is not that the economy benefits from protection forever, but that the authors have enough time to recoup their costs before the works become public. Many people (me included) think copyright terms are too long, but here we are discussing the idea that the term length should be zero, which I speculate most people would agree is too short. Having the economic incentive to produce good works is important to our economy, and if works can be stolen and faked immediately and the authors can’t profit from them, there is no incentive to make good things. I guess to clarify… the quality of a reproduction hurts consumers when the quality is lower than the authentic original, like the case of the Amazon books in this article. But generally speaking, quality isn’t super high on the list of reasons for copyrights, or on the broader economic arguments. The primary reason, it is argued, that fakes and copying hurts consumers is because it’s a drain on the economic incentives for creative and productive people to author new works.

cjbgkagh 4y ago

I used to make software for the masses but it was pirated to the point that the business wasn't viable. I had to switch to a very expensive small niche. While pirating is still rampant it's a niche where I can effectively sue so I can make sure at least my biggest customers keep paying which is enough to keep the business afloat. A lot of goods simply will not be produced at any price if piracy keeps producers out of the market.

zirgs 4y ago
How do you explain open source software then? Why is Linux still being developed?
- looping__lui 4y ago
  It might be tied to scenarios where the engineers producing said piece of software expected no compensation whatsoever (more or less).
- shjake 4y ago
  Direct or indirect support from various corporations generally.
  - zirgs 4y ago
    So it turns out that you can actually make money if you offer source code for free. Epic Games earn billions with their Unreal Engine and Fortnite and they aren't afraid of pirates.
    - shjake 4y ago
      They earn a lot from Fortnite sure. Unreal engine is not technically open source, I’m aware that their revenue from it is that significant compared to Fortnite and they make money by taking a share of revenue from it’s users. Not sure how all of that is relevant for open source though . IBM/Red Hat, Google or even Oracle would be much better examples

ThrowawayR2 4y ago

I have always suspected that the variety of pro-piracy posters on HN probably have no qualms about violating the GPL or other FOSS licenses either. It would be logically consistent at least.

pierat 4y ago
It's funny you say that, but it was Linux that really got me to double down on actual piracy. I tried to get a Netflix subscription. For a long while, nope. Wouldn't work. Even now, Paramount streaming specifically excludes Linux. Theyll gladly take your money, though. Oh, and it works for chrome and android, of which the second is Linux. The people who actually try to buy and pay distributors/creators get screwed time and again. I further refuse to take part in getting screwed again. Or take the Microsoft Zune. Anyone who bought music there ended up buying void after they arbitrarily shut the auth servers down. Cause, uhh, Microsoft couldn't afford a few auth servers? And their sharing added in illegal DRM, especially if I was playing CC tracks that expressly forbid that. (And of course, the irony that MS is part of the business software alliance, with heavy draconian hands of licenses and copyright.... All the while pirating and breaking GPL with copilot. And you want US to respect you? QED: fuck off, MS) There's the whole DVD debacle with deCSS. Whereas with Linux and the FLOSS ecosystem, I do recognize that fellow creators are being ethical, and giving for the cost of "follow my license if you use code". And there's no spyware, DRM, or other harmful stuff. Sure, there's bad actors.... But those bad actors are usually companies like Microsoft who pilfer all our code for their benefit and profit (Copilot). Tit for tat is the best game theory solution so far. And given how many times I've been screwed over by media companies arbitrarily revoking first-sale doctrine because it was really a rental... That means I'll "pierat" my media. I've paid enough. And I will help others free of charge do the same. I guess to look at my views, it really is anti-commercial and pro-FLOSS. And having copyright rules different for the rest of us versus the big media also colors my judgement. (And my last 3 projects were aGPL3, precisely to keep companies from _aaS my software without contributing back.)
kmeisthax 4y ago
No, there's a lot of people here angry at GitHub for making a code-writing tool that occasionally launders GPL code. To actually violate the GPL requires at least some effort towards locking the system down. If you just torrent some Linux ISOs, they either contain source, links to source, or that weird written offer thing that GPLv2 wanted. You'd have to actually remove those in order to violate GPL. Pirates would not be happy with you for doing this. It's also important to note that there's a bit of a difference between different kinds of piracy, and they have different mentalities. You have the FTP topsite scene users, then P2P users, then people trying to resell copyrighted material for money. The first two are more aligned with either "we don't like copyright, period" or "we like downloading free shit", which makes them either aligned with or neutral to the FOSS community. The latter group does not care, they just want a quick way to make a buck. If they couldn't resell other people's books on Amazon, they'd probably be committing some other kind of cybercrime.

bryanrasmussen 4y ago

software piracy has two effects - it keeps prices lower and it helps spread the purchase of legal licenses of software. It helps spread the legal license of software because by using illegal software you learn how to use it and when you get to a job you ask your employer for a version of the software you are familiar with, or because others need to buy software to interop with your illegal software. There is not really any reason to suppose that pirated books help the sale of real books in a similar manner.

turnsout 4y ago

I bought a technical book from Amazon recently, and it looks extremely legit. However, when I got to Chapter 4, only the sidebars and titles were printed—not the main text. The pirates had some kind of typesetting error, and a whole chapter was borked. So not only do I feel duped that I gave the scammers money, I had to rebuy the book (more carefully this time).

tracker1 4y ago

I'm not sure most people would care if not for the quality issues. Big surprise, someone willing to rip off someone else's work is also going to cut corners to make a product so inferior as to be practically useless. Until, or unless it starts actually and materially affecting Amazon's bottom line, I doubt they'll do anything significant about anything. They're the 800lb gorilla and will survive for decades just on entropy at this point.