> 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 creati

> 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.