7 ms·

> if you want to do more you need to donate via crypto which increases your download cap depending how much you donate That doesn't really sound like a donatio

> if you want to do more you need to donate via crypto which increases your download cap depending how much you donate That doesn't really sound like a donation. That sounds like paying for a service. Unless that donation is going to some third party charity?

m348e912 2y ago
They describe it as a donation, but I think your description is more accurate. It doesn't go to charity.
- jbm 2y ago
  This is a legal semantic argument so you're right; but giving books away for free is of far greater charitable value than most legal charities. I think the eventual historical lesson we will learn 100 years in the future is that "Intellectual property" is not real.
  - root_axis 2y ago
    I don't think the authors of the books would agree. Of course intellectual property is not real, but it's no less real than "property" of any kind, so if you don't object to the idea of property rights, it's not clear to me why people who create digital products are less worthy of economic protection than those who create physical ones.
    - shadowgovt 2y ago
      Because lighting your candle from mine doesn't diminish my candle's brightness. We grant limited monopolies on created works to incentivize the creation of the works, but that's it. There's no deeper moral grounding. Words you put out into the world don't belong to you anymore; they created impressions in the minds of other people and those impressions belong to those other people, by natural right. You're right that it's just as sound a property right as every other, but it's one that cuts remarkably against the grain of the underlying natural rights (for a specific perceived societal benefit), and it should always be evaluated as such. Every generation should be asking "Does the current copyright regime create more good than harm?" And every generation should correct if the answer is 'no.'
      - Dalewyn 2y ago
        >Words you put out into the world don't belong to you anymore Literally everyone from the richest of commercial interests to the kumbaya-est of libre interests will disagree.
        shadowgovt 2y ago
        And in the context of natural rights, they'd be wrong. Natural rights are fairly easily thumbnail-sketched by "What are your rights if you're on a desert island?" Out of the context of any preexisting society, what rights would you have? On a desert island, if I find some words scrawled ten feet high on a cliffside, I may do with the ideas in those words what I will: copy them, change them 'round, claim they came from me, claim they came from god. Similarly if I hear some mountain hermit shouting them from their cave. The natural rights as apply to ideas are very, very liberal. We in modern societies (and only recently) have taken up the experiment of constraining those rights with temporarily and contextual monopolies to incentivize creation of more ideas via property law. This works, but in a clunky, hackish way; it is a strange kind of "theft" that leaves us with more of something than when we started. And like all good wild hacks, it deserves to be considered for refactoring frequently.
      - root_axis 2y ago
        > Because lighting your candle from mine doesn't diminish my candle's brightness. So are you saying authors don't deserve any compensation for their work unless they produce books in physical form?
        User23 2y ago
        So you are saying people don’t deserve the right to build on public ideas without, ultimately, having armed men use violence to take money from them or forbidding them altogether? Because remember when you say an author “deserves” to be paid you are saying the state should use its monopoly on violence to make that happen. Perhaps it’s best not to use straw men and loaded terms designed to emotionally appeal to five year olds when discussing enclosure of the intellectual commons?
    - Dalewyn 2y ago
      I agree, though with one semantic nitpick: The digital nature of a work doesn't matter. It says right there on the tin, intellectual property; a la any work ("property") that is a product of human intellect.
      - root_axis 2y ago
        Actually I agree with you, but I refer to the digital aspect because people don't seem to have any difficulties understanding why its problematic to steal physical books.
        crtified 2y ago
        Which contains its own irony, as the trees providing the primary material the physical books are made from would probably have a thing or two to say about the notion of being stolen from.
        root_axis 2y ago
        I don't see any irony in it since trees don't have brains or opinions as far as we know, but when they decide to say something about it I'll definitely be sure to listen. Short of that though, I'm generally not opposed to the production of paper.
        crtified 2y ago
        Sure, if ones moral definition of the universe is that only things which can speak human language are of importance or validity.
        root_axis 2y ago
        If you believe that paper is immoral then you're entitled to that opinion, but you haven't presented any reasoning to justify that belief.
  - xhkkffbf 2y ago
    As an author of books, I can tell you this just prevents me and other authors from creating new books. I dare you to take the same position about not paying workers for any other career. Who pays you? Should they be able to take your work without paying you or your company?
    - WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
      > Should they be able to take your work without paying you or your company? If this were the beginning and end of the issue, you'd be arguing from a strong position. However, holding up theoretical harms by Z-Library (*=lost sale) while omitting the actual, massive and continual harm done against creators (against everyone really) by predatory publishers - it's cursing the puddle while ignoring the tsunami.
      - xhkkffbf 2y ago
        Predatory publishers? Please. Self publishing has never been easier. Authors can keep 100% of the revenues if they choose. The fact that they willfully sign away large percentages just reflects the reality that printing, design, editing, distribution and sales are expensive.
        WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
        > Predatory publishers? Please. Self publishing has never been easier. > The fact that they willfully sign away large percentages just reflects the reality that printing, design, editing, distribution and sales are expensive. You can try to paint academic, research, technical and professional papers authors with that brush. I think you'll find they strongly disagree with that characterization and are fairly tired of pushing back on it. They publish where their careers mandate. The publishers who own those journals know those authors don't have any meaningful choice. Not that that stops the flow of industry talking points and mischaracterizations.
    - jbm 2y ago
      > As an author of books, I can tell you this just prevents me and other authors from creating new books. I am not impressed by the quality of literature I get from people who are purely fiscally motivated.
xhkkffbf 2y ago
Or if you buy a legit version, some of the money will actually go to the people responsible for producing the work. This will allow them to eat and produce more art. Sending money to the pirates, though, will only produce more piracy.
- WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
  > some of the money will actually go to the people responsible for producing the work. As a gatekeeping entity that barricades taxpayer-funded docs behind paywalls (from the taxpayers who funded their creation), the thing Elsevier produces is unethical rent-seeking behavior. > Sending money to the pirates, though, will only produce more piracy. Until meaningfully ethical alternatives emerge, folks work with what they got.
- observationist 2y ago
  Or you can identify the actual creator/s, send them all the money, and let the money grubbing middlemen wither on the vine. Run the numbers on how much money you've given the publishing industry and the entertainment industries in your lifetime. I did this; I'm not giving them a red cent more. A surprising number of authors and artists have bitcoin, nearly all have some web presence and means of donating. Be generous pirates.
- DEADMINCE 2y ago
  Actually, pirates consistently spend the most on content. Go figure.
  - trogdor 2y ago
    I have seen this claim many times, but I have never seen anyone produce evidence to back it up. Why do you believe that what you wrote is true?
    - DEADMINCE 2y ago
      > Why do you believe that what you wrote is true? Because I've seen this claim many times over more than a decade, and have seen evidence multiple times. I've also been able to search for it when I was curious and find it without issue. Here's the first search result, a Vice article from 2018: https://www.vice.com/en/article/evkmz7/study-again-shows-pirates-tend-to-be-the-biggest-buyers-of-legal-content https://www.vice.com/en/article/evkmz7/study-again-shows-pir...
DEADMINCE 2y ago
> That doesn't really sound like a donation. That sounds like paying for a service. I agree, but this is common. Look at EFF 'donations' at conferences, for example, where they are just selling a product for a set price and call it a donation.

m348e912 2y ago

They describe it as a donation, but I think your description is more accurate. It doesn't go to charity.

jbm 2y ago
This is a legal semantic argument so you're right; but giving books away for free is of far greater charitable value than most legal charities. I think the eventual historical lesson we will learn 100 years in the future is that "Intellectual property" is not real.
- root_axis 2y ago
  I don't think the authors of the books would agree. Of course intellectual property is not real, but it's no less real than "property" of any kind, so if you don't object to the idea of property rights, it's not clear to me why people who create digital products are less worthy of economic protection than those who create physical ones.
  - shadowgovt 2y ago
    Because lighting your candle from mine doesn't diminish my candle's brightness. We grant limited monopolies on created works to incentivize the creation of the works, but that's it. There's no deeper moral grounding. Words you put out into the world don't belong to you anymore; they created impressions in the minds of other people and those impressions belong to those other people, by natural right. You're right that it's just as sound a property right as every other, but it's one that cuts remarkably against the grain of the underlying natural rights (for a specific perceived societal benefit), and it should always be evaluated as such. Every generation should be asking "Does the current copyright regime create more good than harm?" And every generation should correct if the answer is 'no.'
    - Dalewyn 2y ago
      >Words you put out into the world don't belong to you anymore Literally everyone from the richest of commercial interests to the kumbaya-est of libre interests will disagree.
      - shadowgovt 2y ago
        And in the context of natural rights, they'd be wrong. Natural rights are fairly easily thumbnail-sketched by "What are your rights if you're on a desert island?" Out of the context of any preexisting society, what rights would you have? On a desert island, if I find some words scrawled ten feet high on a cliffside, I may do with the ideas in those words what I will: copy them, change them 'round, claim they came from me, claim they came from god. Similarly if I hear some mountain hermit shouting them from their cave. The natural rights as apply to ideas are very, very liberal. We in modern societies (and only recently) have taken up the experiment of constraining those rights with temporarily and contextual monopolies to incentivize creation of more ideas via property law. This works, but in a clunky, hackish way; it is a strange kind of "theft" that leaves us with more of something than when we started. And like all good wild hacks, it deserves to be considered for refactoring frequently.
    - root_axis 2y ago
      > Because lighting your candle from mine doesn't diminish my candle's brightness. So are you saying authors don't deserve any compensation for their work unless they produce books in physical form?
      - User23 2y ago
        So you are saying people don’t deserve the right to build on public ideas without, ultimately, having armed men use violence to take money from them or forbidding them altogether? Because remember when you say an author “deserves” to be paid you are saying the state should use its monopoly on violence to make that happen. Perhaps it’s best not to use straw men and loaded terms designed to emotionally appeal to five year olds when discussing enclosure of the intellectual commons?
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    I agree, though with one semantic nitpick: The digital nature of a work doesn't matter. It says right there on the tin, intellectual property; a la any work ("property") that is a product of human intellect.
    - root_axis 2y ago
      Actually I agree with you, but I refer to the digital aspect because people don't seem to have any difficulties understanding why its problematic to steal physical books.
      - crtified 2y ago
        Which contains its own irony, as the trees providing the primary material the physical books are made from would probably have a thing or two to say about the notion of being stolen from.
        root_axis 2y ago
        I don't see any irony in it since trees don't have brains or opinions as far as we know, but when they decide to say something about it I'll definitely be sure to listen. Short of that though, I'm generally not opposed to the production of paper.
        crtified 2y ago
        Sure, if ones moral definition of the universe is that only things which can speak human language are of importance or validity.
        root_axis 2y ago
        If you believe that paper is immoral then you're entitled to that opinion, but you haven't presented any reasoning to justify that belief.
- xhkkffbf 2y ago
  As an author of books, I can tell you this just prevents me and other authors from creating new books. I dare you to take the same position about not paying workers for any other career. Who pays you? Should they be able to take your work without paying you or your company?
  - WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
    > Should they be able to take your work without paying you or your company? If this were the beginning and end of the issue, you'd be arguing from a strong position. However, holding up theoretical harms by Z-Library (*=lost sale) while omitting the actual, massive and continual harm done against creators (against everyone really) by predatory publishers - it's cursing the puddle while ignoring the tsunami.
    - xhkkffbf 2y ago
      Predatory publishers? Please. Self publishing has never been easier. Authors can keep 100% of the revenues if they choose. The fact that they willfully sign away large percentages just reflects the reality that printing, design, editing, distribution and sales are expensive.
      - WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
        > Predatory publishers? Please. Self publishing has never been easier. > The fact that they willfully sign away large percentages just reflects the reality that printing, design, editing, distribution and sales are expensive. You can try to paint academic, research, technical and professional papers authors with that brush. I think you'll find they strongly disagree with that characterization and are fairly tired of pushing back on it. They publish where their careers mandate. The publishers who own those journals know those authors don't have any meaningful choice. Not that that stops the flow of industry talking points and mischaracterizations.
  - jbm 2y ago
    > As an author of books, I can tell you this just prevents me and other authors from creating new books. I am not impressed by the quality of literature I get from people who are purely fiscally motivated.

xhkkffbf 2y ago

Or if you buy a legit version, some of the money will actually go to the people responsible for producing the work. This will allow them to eat and produce more art. Sending money to the pirates, though, will only produce more piracy.

WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
> some of the money will actually go to the people responsible for producing the work. As a gatekeeping entity that barricades taxpayer-funded docs behind paywalls (from the taxpayers who funded their creation), the thing Elsevier produces is unethical rent-seeking behavior. > Sending money to the pirates, though, will only produce more piracy. Until meaningfully ethical alternatives emerge, folks work with what they got.
observationist 2y ago
Or you can identify the actual creator/s, send them all the money, and let the money grubbing middlemen wither on the vine. Run the numbers on how much money you've given the publishing industry and the entertainment industries in your lifetime. I did this; I'm not giving them a red cent more. A surprising number of authors and artists have bitcoin, nearly all have some web presence and means of donating. Be generous pirates.
DEADMINCE 2y ago
Actually, pirates consistently spend the most on content. Go figure.
- trogdor 2y ago
  I have seen this claim many times, but I have never seen anyone produce evidence to back it up. Why do you believe that what you wrote is true?
  - DEADMINCE 2y ago
    > Why do you believe that what you wrote is true? Because I've seen this claim many times over more than a decade, and have seen evidence multiple times. I've also been able to search for it when I was curious and find it without issue. Here's the first search result, a Vice article from 2018: https://www.vice.com/en/article/evkmz7/study-again-shows-pirates-tend-to-be-the-biggest-buyers-of-legal-content https://www.vice.com/en/article/evkmz7/study-again-shows-pir...

DEADMINCE 2y ago

> That doesn't really sound like a donation. That sounds like paying for a service. I agree, but this is common. Look at EFF 'donations' at conferences, for example, where they are just selling a product for a set price and call it a donation.