I think that licences and copyrights are a useful litmus test in the move towards post-scarcity. If the copyright advocates win, you can expect even more artificial scarcity in the future with most people's living standards reduced to something worse than serfdom. If the copyright system can be weakened, then there is a chance that most people will see greater prosperity.
Currently, there is no viable way to access all that information without databases like the Z-Library or scihub/libgen. All those library subscriptions are just a legalised form of extortion, which are usually inaccessible if you aren't affiliated with a university (or not with the right one)
Not really, it's fairly easy to find most things on the internet without acquiring them from an official source. It's an open question of what will happen next - if "trusted computing" and the appliance model wins, then you can say goodbye to that. However, that hasn't happened yet, and computers are still open computing platforms. I certainly hope for a future where that doesn't happen.
I always think of this quote from Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri when these issues come up:
"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
--Commissioner Pravin Lal, "U.N. Declaration of Rights"
Library Genesis (and there are multiple LibGen servers now!) has operated for years without the same profit model as Z-Library. In fact, in the e-book piracy scene that goes back well over a decade already, Z-Library’s model is pretty unusual and has always been under a cloud of controversy.
This isn't true. They provide materials for free, but with a daily limit. That isn't to mention 10 books a day is a lot as you are not limited by download size. Even then, nothing stops you from waiting 24 hours.
To say that they are not allowed to have a membership model that allows them to sustain themselves is nothing but jumping on high horse. People always say they would donate, but saying so is not the same as doing so. Most people never donate, and the donation model was never sustainable.
May be because they are not reselling anything. As far as I'm concerned, in a legal world you cannot get your textbook without paying first. Z-library gives you these books for free. If you reached your daily limit, you wait 24 hours. No one really forces you to get into membership and there are other, free ways to avoid the daily limit.
By your logic they either must provide copyrighted content for free and pay hosting out of their pocket or provide nothing at all since they don't have the moral ground to ask for money. Servers cost money, a lot of money.
You seem to think that because they give 10 books a day, somehow charging for the 11th onward doesn't make it a commercial operation? And yes, I think that if you're going to be hosting material in violation of copyright distributing it for free (or asking for voluntary donations) is the only remotely ethical way to do it. Otherwise, you're illegally profiting off of other peoples work.
I don't know what's hard about understanding "daily limit" model. If you can't download 11th book, just come back tomorrow and you can download 10 more books. You can download 10 more books the next day after that. You can download infinite amount of books, downloading 10 of them every single day. This is what "daily limit" means.
Now, "charging" means there is no other way to download the 11th book unless you pay. There will be no way to download it tomorrow, or the next day after that, unless you pay. This is "charging".
Their membership model is no different from donations, except that membership gives you benefits. You are NOT forced to get it.
> If they didn't have a premium membership this would be much different.
You can buy invites to private trackers too. You can buy ratio - the ability to download more. It's complicated.
The difference is you've never heard of the private trackers. (Edit: it turns out the poster is in private trackers.)
One thing's for sure: Congress has completely abrogated its role in resolving these matters to everyone's liking.
> I have no sympathy
Like piracy exists, massive piracy, de jure, that's the status quo, it would be extremely reductionist and flawed to be like, "Well piracy is illegal." Like every person you like has probably pirated something, something expensive. I bet one of your favorite professors or TAs has probably copied a book for people: they're facilitating piracy. Something something log in your eye.
I'm not saying you're wrong or right or whatever. I'm saying every meaningful IP related question nowadays requires years of courtroom litigation to Just Get a Fucking Answer. It's chaos.
I'm on some private trackers. When they get shut down, I won't be surprised.
In my anarchist circles, other things are recommended before z-lib, which is a second-to-last resort.
There's an ebook piracy scheme that's been going on longer than z-lib, but it's a little bit more complicated to use than just a website, so it kinda flies under the radar.
> In my anarchist circles, other things are recommended before z-lib, which is a second-to-last resort.
>
> There's an ebook piracy scheme that's been going on longer than z-lib, but it's a little bit more complicated to use than just a website, so it kinda flies under the radar.
> There's an ebook piracy scheme that's been going on longer than z-lib, but it's a little bit more complicated to use than just a website, so it kinda flies under the radar.
In my experience downloading books from IRC isn’t as annoying as getting them from zlibrary etc but the selection isn’t as good.
> One thing's for sure: Congress has completely abrogated its role in resolving these matters to everyone's liking.
I wish congress would do what they are supposed to do. The constitution clearly states that Congress can blablah (copyright) WITH THE PURPOSE OF ADVANCING science and useful arts. That's the only purpose of copyright.
Now, for books, compare what you can get on zlibrary, with what you can buy at amazon. Never mind comparing it to a local bookstore. It becomes obvious quickly that the superior move for advancing the arts (not just availability) is to let them exist.
This is the problem: copyright kills availability. After 2-3 weeks (months for some books, and the only books lasting years are textbooks, which also ought to be free, for different reasons) books aren't economical to print anymore. This means that after 6 months or so new works disappear into a black hole because for-profit firms don't distribute them anymore, and copyright means nobody else is doing it either (certainly libraries don't hold on to them. I mean you can get lucky, but ...)
Same thing goes for movies. Theater release. TV release. Netflix release. Say this takes a year (these days). After that, good luck getting hold of a movie.
Now can anyone tell me how creating a 6-month event horizon for all books, after which they disappear into a black hole forever, advances science and useful arts ...
They can even keep Disney in power for all I care. How about you have to prove 1000 sales in a year to retain copyright?
There is nothing wrong with a library that limits the number of books people can read per day unless they pay. Libraries in many western countries are customarily free to access, but they don't have to be this way.
University publishers have consolidated in an anti-trust manner to virtual monopolies, and so charge zillions for books that should be $20 instead of $200. Universities have become massive cash-extraction businesses swimming in coin, spending 10-100M's USD each on buildings in short order, while trying to keep up the pretense of academic purity.
And then there are the journals that are so expensive that high school and college students and people in developing countries who cannot afford to get past their paywalls. This reinforces both an economic and a scientific elitism.
Would you friend feel the same if they were an author or an artist who created the work and depended revenues from their work to put food in their mouth?
Look up the incredible profit margins of publishers such as Elsevier or Springer.
University researchers/teachers who publish books or articles through them often get paid nothing (zero), or very little. And they do not care, since their goal is get publications in prestigious venues, which helps them in their academic career.
My point is that this stuff should be free, open access, published at low cost through university presses etc. So pirating academic books is basically fine.
My point is that this stuff should be free, open access, published at low cost through university presses etc. So pirating academic books is basically fine.
That should be up to the author, no? If they decide to not make it open source and take a tiny profit, that's their decision since it's their work.
Sure, but publishers do a lot of promotion, have upfront bonuses, guaranteed quantities. There is a reason why people go with publishers and don't self-publish. You're paying for the reach and marketing.
The whole thing is a paywall-to-really-use it operation?
That's what always confused me about z-lib, whereas its scientific version has all its TBs of data available via torrent (albeit very slowly), this one seemed like a shady operation based on the fact that i cannot simply start downloading everything.
Will it only be google that has books as a data source?
I had no idea z-lib moved to a freemium model, last time I looked it was free. Did the US legal actions put them in a dire need for money?
Anyway, I've found https://annas-archive.org/ (which, btw, charges for links to faster downloads) now so there's no reason for me to be browsing libgen or z-lib anymore.
Tried logging into Z-Library recently, only to be shown a message that my account had been deleted (with no reason given), and to please email their support address.
But, no response to any emails. And trying to create any kind of new account... also gets no confirmation email.
Shame to see what happened to Z-Library. I used it a lot, I even donated a few times. The way I used it was to weed out the rubbish. Amazon used to offer x amount of pages to read for free, so now I have to pirate a digital copy to see if it's any good before I buy it. In most cases it isn't. I don't know what happened in the last 10-15 years but the majority of books (both fiction and non-fiction) are complete garbage, especially true for tech books while they still cost a lot. Reviews are of course complete junk so can't rely on those, enter Z-Library. This is just my 2c for those who think that pirating is all about not paying money. That's not true. I will happily pay, but the process of buying books needs to be improved. If you buy a lawnmower and it start and cuts the grass then all is well, if you buy a non-fiction book promising something and it doesn't deliver you can't return in (and if you do with Amazon for example, after a few times they'll essentially tell you to f off). Give us a free view of 10% pages excluding the list of contents and there won't be any need for Z-Library.
I used to write technical books. I wrote several books for O'Reilly. I don't write anymore. Piracy took such a huge chunk of my revenue that I could make more money in less time working at the carwash or delivering pizza. Literally.
My first O'Reilly book sold 1000s of copies per month. My last book sold 5-15 copies per month. It took me 7 months working half time to write it. So, I was making at most $150 per month for the 2-3 year life of the book. I never earned out my advance, which was only $5,000.
Have you noticed? O'Reilly publishes few books anymore. You wonder why current books are garbage? Piracy killed book publishing, except for detective novels and other entertainment-oriented books that, in some sense, were garbage all along. So, you want free books? You got 'em. Just don't whine about how badly they suck. You wouldn't work for free and you can't reasonably expect capable authors to do so. They'll find something better to do with their time. Do I have to explain what that should tell you about those who continue to write???
54 comments
[ 2.1 ms ] story [ 117 ms ] threadI have no sympathy. If they didn't have a premium membership this would be much different.
Currently, there is no viable way to access all that information without databases like the Z-Library or scihub/libgen. All those library subscriptions are just a legalised form of extortion, which are usually inaccessible if you aren't affiliated with a university (or not with the right one)
"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
--Commissioner Pravin Lal, "U.N. Declaration of Rights"
It can also be (easily) argued that Z-Library is a definitive net-benefit to the humanity as a whole.
Taking money in exchange for priority access to the "stolen" materials makes things feel less like charity, though.
Do you even read 10 books per day anyway?
Why doesn’t this statement also apply to the source of the materials this entity is stealing from?
It's copyrighted content, why would they be allowed to sustain themselves illegally reselling it?
It's very simple.
Libgen isn't facing the same issues because it isn't a commercial enterprise.
You can buy invites to private trackers too. You can buy ratio - the ability to download more. It's complicated.
The difference is you've never heard of the private trackers. (Edit: it turns out the poster is in private trackers.)
One thing's for sure: Congress has completely abrogated its role in resolving these matters to everyone's liking.
> I have no sympathy
Like piracy exists, massive piracy, de jure, that's the status quo, it would be extremely reductionist and flawed to be like, "Well piracy is illegal." Like every person you like has probably pirated something, something expensive. I bet one of your favorite professors or TAs has probably copied a book for people: they're facilitating piracy. Something something log in your eye.
I'm not saying you're wrong or right or whatever. I'm saying every meaningful IP related question nowadays requires years of courtroom litigation to Just Get a Fucking Answer. It's chaos.
In my anarchist circles, other things are recommended before z-lib, which is a second-to-last resort.
There's an ebook piracy scheme that's been going on longer than z-lib, but it's a little bit more complicated to use than just a website, so it kinda flies under the radar.
> anarchist circles
Okay well, demanding ethical piracy from everyone except for the piracy that you use is pretty NIMBY of you.
And anyway, I'm not sure why you're being downvoted! This humorless website...
It's a bummer for humanity, but the people running z-lib should have known what they were getting into by charging for a fast lane.
My tracker gives you points based on site and IRC activity which you can use to buy invites and ratio.
Donation gives your username a different colour in the shoutbox. I think you can pick colour if you donate enough.
Pray tell.
slsk is also an old thing that sometimes surprises, though it's not the best for books
much newer is telegram bots for all sorts of things, from sci-hub replacement to general ebooks
In my experience downloading books from IRC isn’t as annoying as getting them from zlibrary etc but the selection isn’t as good.
I wish congress would do what they are supposed to do. The constitution clearly states that Congress can blablah (copyright) WITH THE PURPOSE OF ADVANCING science and useful arts. That's the only purpose of copyright.
Now, for books, compare what you can get on zlibrary, with what you can buy at amazon. Never mind comparing it to a local bookstore. It becomes obvious quickly that the superior move for advancing the arts (not just availability) is to let them exist.
This is the problem: copyright kills availability. After 2-3 weeks (months for some books, and the only books lasting years are textbooks, which also ought to be free, for different reasons) books aren't economical to print anymore. This means that after 6 months or so new works disappear into a black hole because for-profit firms don't distribute them anymore, and copyright means nobody else is doing it either (certainly libraries don't hold on to them. I mean you can get lucky, but ...)
Same thing goes for movies. Theater release. TV release. Netflix release. Say this takes a year (these days). After that, good luck getting hold of a movie.
Now can anyone tell me how creating a 6-month event horizon for all books, after which they disappear into a black hole forever, advances science and useful arts ...
They can even keep Disney in power for all I care. How about you have to prove 1000 sales in a year to retain copyright?
University publishers have consolidated in an anti-trust manner to virtual monopolies, and so charge zillions for books that should be $20 instead of $200. Universities have become massive cash-extraction businesses swimming in coin, spending 10-100M's USD each on buildings in short order, while trying to keep up the pretense of academic purity.
And then there are the journals that are so expensive that high school and college students and people in developing countries who cannot afford to get past their paywalls. This reinforces both an economic and a scientific elitism.
University researchers/teachers who publish books or articles through them often get paid nothing (zero), or very little. And they do not care, since their goal is get publications in prestigious venues, which helps them in their academic career.
My point is that this stuff should be free, open access, published at low cost through university presses etc. So pirating academic books is basically fine.
That should be up to the author, no? If they decide to not make it open source and take a tiny profit, that's their decision since it's their work.
That's what always confused me about z-lib, whereas its scientific version has all its TBs of data available via torrent (albeit very slowly), this one seemed like a shady operation based on the fact that i cannot simply start downloading everything.
Will it only be google that has books as a data source?
Anyway, I've found https://annas-archive.org/ (which, btw, charges for links to faster downloads) now so there's no reason for me to be browsing libgen or z-lib anymore.
when convenient
I feel like this practice will stop when other countries assert the same concept on important people
But, no response to any emails. And trying to create any kind of new account... also gets no confirmation email.
So, Z-Library can go fuck themselves. :(
My first O'Reilly book sold 1000s of copies per month. My last book sold 5-15 copies per month. It took me 7 months working half time to write it. So, I was making at most $150 per month for the 2-3 year life of the book. I never earned out my advance, which was only $5,000.
Have you noticed? O'Reilly publishes few books anymore. You wonder why current books are garbage? Piracy killed book publishing, except for detective novels and other entertainment-oriented books that, in some sense, were garbage all along. So, you want free books? You got 'em. Just don't whine about how badly they suck. You wouldn't work for free and you can't reasonably expect capable authors to do so. They'll find something better to do with their time. Do I have to explain what that should tell you about those who continue to write???