4 ms·

I wish I had read your entire comment before ordering "The Making of" because now I'm paying double shipping to get "Dark Sun" as well.

kilolima 2y ago
[flagged]
- Cthulhu_ 2y ago
  You seem to be advocating piracy for a book still in print, still for sale, and from an author who is still alive; please don't, it's mean.
  - TaylorAlexander 2y ago
    Hard disagree that it is inherently "mean" to pirate a book regardless of its status. If you can afford to support someone you should, but IMO we should value most of all unrestricted access to knowledge without shame. Also this book first came out in 1986. One hopes the author is still not dependent on its sales.
    - josephg 2y ago
      Yep. Personally I’m generally in favour of copyright as it was originally drafted: only valid for 7 years, with an optional extension to 14. I’m all for creative people making a living from their work, but 40 years copyright is too long. To say nothing of the absurd rules today of 70 years after the death of the author or whatever it is.
      - aidenn0 2y ago
        My example is Disney's 1959 Sleeping Beauty. Had today's copyright regime been in force, Tchaikovsky's 1890 ballet would have still been under copyright, so Disney couldn't have made it.
        mr_toad 2y ago
        If you could patent pulling up the ladder after you, Disney would hold that patent.
      - Yeul 2y ago
        Also a lot of history books were funded by government money or NGOs. Which is understandable considering that it may very well take years of research to write one.
    - sigzero 2y ago
      Why should "not dependent" on sales be any kind of consideration here? The right thing to do is to purchase the book.
      - TaylorAlexander 2y ago
        I disagree that purchasing the book is automatically the “right” thing to do. If someone cannot afford the book, it is my view that society should not expect them to pay. I believe that this view towards knowledge will lead to a wiser society, and we deviate from that path at our peril.
        natebc 2y ago
        This is the role of public libraries right?
    - AlbertCory 2y ago
      Hard disagree that it's not theft. That's what it is. > One hopes the author is still not dependent on its sa One hopes that someone moves into your house because you're not dependent on that spare bedroom anymore.
      - SequoiaHope 2y ago
        Books, especially digital copies, are not property in the same way that a house is property. If someone could download a duplicate of my house and live in it without having any impact on my own house, that would be great. We invented the idea that information is property, and I think restricting access to knowledge via copyright is a net harm to society. Authors need to survive, but IMO we should seek solutions that provide for authors while also allowing unrestricted access. We have seen for well over a decade now that "pay what you can" schemes to fund music and books can work very well. There are three billion people on this planet with an opportunity to gain internet access in the next 50 years. Should we paywall every book written in the last 150 years to benefit publishers? Or make a free public library of every book available to benefit humankind? This is the question we face, and I know what my view on it is.
        AlbertCory 2y ago
        OK, that's your view. The "all information is public" view is not the law and will never be the law. But you do you. > we should seek solutions that provide for authors while also allowing Weasel words. We should seek solutions that let us fly airplanes without having to pass that bothersome test, too.
        TaylorAlexander 2y ago
        > "all information is public" Published works, not "all information". It's up to society to decide if we want to prioritize publishers or humanity. I don't believe our restrictive legal regime will persist around the world in perpetuity. It is too harmful to humanity, and someone will break ranks with "harmonization" even if the USA does not.
    - throw10920 2y ago
      > IMO we should value most of all unrestricted access to knowledge This is not "unrestricted access to knowledge". This is a creative work produced by a creative under the assumption that their work would be paid for. You don't have the right to take someone else's work without compensating them on their terms. That's theft. Even worse, it's unnecessary theft. You're not advocating for someone pirating a book on exercise so someone can get in shape and extend their life - you're advocating for pirating a book, cheating the author out of revenue, for entertainment alone. People are not going to die because they couldn't get their hands on a copy of "Dark Sun." And, even if the book was actual utility - the contents for the majority of actually useful books are already made freely available online in the form of research papers, websites, public domain books, or Creative Commons licensed content like LibreTexts or OpenStax. "unrestricted access to knowledge" is effectively already here - you're just being entitled to other people's work, and that is truly shameful.

kilolima 2y ago

[flagged]

Cthulhu_ 2y ago
You seem to be advocating piracy for a book still in print, still for sale, and from an author who is still alive; please don't, it's mean.
- TaylorAlexander 2y ago
  Hard disagree that it is inherently "mean" to pirate a book regardless of its status. If you can afford to support someone you should, but IMO we should value most of all unrestricted access to knowledge without shame. Also this book first came out in 1986. One hopes the author is still not dependent on its sales.
  - josephg 2y ago
    Yep. Personally I’m generally in favour of copyright as it was originally drafted: only valid for 7 years, with an optional extension to 14. I’m all for creative people making a living from their work, but 40 years copyright is too long. To say nothing of the absurd rules today of 70 years after the death of the author or whatever it is.
    - aidenn0 2y ago
      My example is Disney's 1959 Sleeping Beauty. Had today's copyright regime been in force, Tchaikovsky's 1890 ballet would have still been under copyright, so Disney couldn't have made it.
      - mr_toad 2y ago
        If you could patent pulling up the ladder after you, Disney would hold that patent.
    - Yeul 2y ago
      Also a lot of history books were funded by government money or NGOs. Which is understandable considering that it may very well take years of research to write one.
  - sigzero 2y ago
    Why should "not dependent" on sales be any kind of consideration here? The right thing to do is to purchase the book.
    - TaylorAlexander 2y ago
      I disagree that purchasing the book is automatically the “right” thing to do. If someone cannot afford the book, it is my view that society should not expect them to pay. I believe that this view towards knowledge will lead to a wiser society, and we deviate from that path at our peril.
      - natebc 2y ago
        This is the role of public libraries right?
  - AlbertCory 2y ago
    Hard disagree that it's not theft. That's what it is. > One hopes the author is still not dependent on its sa One hopes that someone moves into your house because you're not dependent on that spare bedroom anymore.
    - SequoiaHope 2y ago
      Books, especially digital copies, are not property in the same way that a house is property. If someone could download a duplicate of my house and live in it without having any impact on my own house, that would be great. We invented the idea that information is property, and I think restricting access to knowledge via copyright is a net harm to society. Authors need to survive, but IMO we should seek solutions that provide for authors while also allowing unrestricted access. We have seen for well over a decade now that "pay what you can" schemes to fund music and books can work very well. There are three billion people on this planet with an opportunity to gain internet access in the next 50 years. Should we paywall every book written in the last 150 years to benefit publishers? Or make a free public library of every book available to benefit humankind? This is the question we face, and I know what my view on it is.
      - AlbertCory 2y ago
        OK, that's your view. The "all information is public" view is not the law and will never be the law. But you do you. > we should seek solutions that provide for authors while also allowing Weasel words. We should seek solutions that let us fly airplanes without having to pass that bothersome test, too.
        TaylorAlexander 2y ago
        > "all information is public" Published works, not "all information". It's up to society to decide if we want to prioritize publishers or humanity. I don't believe our restrictive legal regime will persist around the world in perpetuity. It is too harmful to humanity, and someone will break ranks with "harmonization" even if the USA does not.
  - throw10920 2y ago
    > IMO we should value most of all unrestricted access to knowledge This is not "unrestricted access to knowledge". This is a creative work produced by a creative under the assumption that their work would be paid for. You don't have the right to take someone else's work without compensating them on their terms. That's theft. Even worse, it's unnecessary theft. You're not advocating for someone pirating a book on exercise so someone can get in shape and extend their life - you're advocating for pirating a book, cheating the author out of revenue, for entertainment alone. People are not going to die because they couldn't get their hands on a copy of "Dark Sun." And, even if the book was actual utility - the contents for the majority of actually useful books are already made freely available online in the form of research papers, websites, public domain books, or Creative Commons licensed content like LibreTexts or OpenStax. "unrestricted access to knowledge" is effectively already here - you're just being entitled to other people's work, and that is truly shameful.