4 ms·

The article points out the valid complaint from people who do not have access to legitimate ways of obtaining books/information, and makes a point of saying he

The article points out the valid complaint from people who do not have access to legitimate ways of obtaining books/information, and makes a point of saying he does not endorse the way library.nu operated. I'd disagree. We're presented with a technology which is slowly replacing the institutions we take for granted and made a great improvement on society. I'm thinking about both libraries and radio. As Neil Young said, piracy is the new radio. Except that it is better and easier to access. And library.nu functioned as my library, except that it is better and easier to access. If the music I was interested overlapped with the mainstream, then radio would probably be good, and if the library had the technical books I like, then that would too. Alas, they don't, and both internet and library.nu are (latter: were) my substitutions. I've downloaded all the books I've purchased after graduating a year ago (which is around 5). Even after owning a book, I've downloaded the same at work and shown it to a colleague, who also ended up purchasing it. When I look for a book on a topic of interest, I search amazon, read a few reviews, then download it on library.nu. The decision to buy it is done after going through the book and see if I like how the author writes, how the example code is, and especially how it covers my specific topic, before buying it. Usually, if it is a broad topic, I do this for about 3-5 books, and decide on which one to buy. I'm going to go further than the author, and endorse library.nu for all its worth. Both as a library and for those who cannot afford, or don't have access. As for the freeloaders, or more precisely the actual losses: I believe they are small enough that it outweighs the cost. And honestly, if they didn't, the marked would adapt.

fbuilesv 15y ago
The decision to buy it is done after going through the book and see if I like how the author writes, how the example code is, and especially how it covers my specific topic, before buying it You're basically saying you'd walk in to a restaurant, have a bite of every dish and then maybe decide to pay for it. I do this for about 3-5 books, and decide on which one to buy. Now you walk into three restaurants, eat a bit at every one of them and then decide to pay for the one you liked the most. I agree with the original article and I think there are times where piracy is valid, but let's not think that a valid solution is to pay for what we think we should pay and nothing else.
- tikhonj 15y ago
  No. What he's saying is that he'd want to listen to a band on the radio or from a friend before maybe buying their album. Which is completely reasonable. Drawing parallels between physical property or services and information can be misleading--the real issue with the restaurant example is the restaurant's loss in both time and opportunity cost. Since copies of information are not naturally scarce, this is not an issue. It's really more like he looked at the food and cooked the same meal at home before coming to the restaurant and paying.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- psquid 15y ago
  The important difference here is that your examples involve something physical; in both, he has eaten some food that can thus no longer be given to anyone else. Whereas, if he downloads a copy of an eBook, the publisher can still sell copies to just as many people; he has not removed any finite resource from the system. I'm still not sure it's justifiable (though I'm leaning slightly towards it being so), but it certainly isn't comparable to what you're saying it is.

fbuilesv 15y ago

The decision to buy it is done after going through the book and see if I like how the author writes, how the example code is, and especially how it covers my specific topic, before buying it You're basically saying you'd walk in to a restaurant, have a bite of every dish and then maybe decide to pay for it. I do this for about 3-5 books, and decide on which one to buy. Now you walk into three restaurants, eat a bit at every one of them and then decide to pay for the one you liked the most. I agree with the original article and I think there are times where piracy is valid, but let's not think that a valid solution is to pay for what we think we should pay and nothing else.

tikhonj 15y ago
No. What he's saying is that he'd want to listen to a band on the radio or from a friend before maybe buying their album. Which is completely reasonable. Drawing parallels between physical property or services and information can be misleading--the real issue with the restaurant example is the restaurant's loss in both time and opportunity cost. Since copies of information are not naturally scarce, this is not an issue. It's really more like he looked at the food and cooked the same meal at home before coming to the restaurant and paying.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
psquid 15y ago
The important difference here is that your examples involve something physical; in both, he has eaten some food that can thus no longer be given to anyone else. Whereas, if he downloads a copy of an eBook, the publisher can still sell copies to just as many people; he has not removed any finite resource from the system. I'm still not sure it's justifiable (though I'm leaning slightly towards it being so), but it certainly isn't comparable to what you're saying it is.