It's amazing that people have somehow been convinced that it's sane not only to throw others in prison for copying files but also to have special police for it.
In South Korea, educational inequality due to inability to afford educational materials has been an issue for many years.
The argument against piracy is that people have the right to be compensated for their work. Consider this argument in the context of medical services. The extreme pirate position is equivalent to expecting doctors to provide cosmetic surgery for free. The extreme industry position is equivalent to saying doctors should let patients die on the sidewalk if they can't pay.
I'm torn on the issue of sharing files, because I've watched its rise over the past 25 years and seen how tremendously it has improved educational opportunities for poorer peoples.
The anti piracy stance would be making it illegal for a surgeon/person to copy the procedure another surgeon invented without payment. Copying does not require additional labor from the inventor.
Obviously we would like the inventor of the procedure to be compensated, but is it worth depriving other people, or potentially them dying, to protect "intellectual property"?
>The Ministry of Culture and Sport says others involved will be tracked down and given lessons in copyright law.
This is way too soft of a punishment. If people can get away with attending a lesson there will not be enough risk in the risk reward analysis people do before violating people's copyrights.
Obviously book authors need to be paid, but those at the bottom of the ladder seeking to climb it through education can't afford the books.
Perhaps some kind of program run by the publishers could give free books to these people, to reduce the motivation for piracy of the books? Those that can afford it would still pay, of course.
That said, the current system is broken, so while this particular site is gone, z-library and anna's archive live on and won't be getting taken down any time zoon.
The real issue is modern day purchasing is not ownership. It's not even leasing. It's you pay the full list price for a PDF or music file that can disappear anytime from your library if the corpo-rats decide it shouldn't be available to you anymore.
If purchasing isn't ownership, then piracy shouldn't be theft.
I would like to have a trustworthy, privacy-respecting digital asset licensing service. Ideally free from profit motives, maybe run my a government, maybe a non profit. Regardless, i want my right to engage with a work separated from the manifestation of that work. Movies Anywhere kinda does this, but I want it to go way, way further.
Buy a book? You now own a the right to read that book from whatever file. Subscribe to Disney+? You have the right to watch all the marvel movies. Even when those movies are chopped and re-edited into a massive full chronology.
If a digital store ceases operations, you retain the rights to the bits. Maybe you have to do some work to get access to them, but you’re perfectly within your rights to torrent those bits.
Heck, maybe you could like the rights management to distribution. Have a right to the bits? Please seed.
I think that especially for educational, engineering, and scientific research, these kinds of “libraries” cross over firmly into the public good.
Making money on textbooks by selling them to students at premium prices is despicable and is a poverty of mind for the future. Course tuition should include necessary book access. We gain so much more as a civilisation by sharing within academia that there needs to be a change in the way that the publishing industry treats these kinds of “violations “.
I recall attending a talk by Richard Stallman where he critiqued the use of the word "piracy" for file sharing. "Pirates" attack and destroy ships, kill innocents, and generally rape and plunder. How does that word fit what's basically sharing and trying to help your neighbor?
15 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 33.5 ms ] threadIt's amazing that people have somehow been convinced that it's sane not only to throw others in prison for copying files but also to have special police for it.
The argument against piracy is that people have the right to be compensated for their work. Consider this argument in the context of medical services. The extreme pirate position is equivalent to expecting doctors to provide cosmetic surgery for free. The extreme industry position is equivalent to saying doctors should let patients die on the sidewalk if they can't pay.
I'm torn on the issue of sharing files, because I've watched its rise over the past 25 years and seen how tremendously it has improved educational opportunities for poorer peoples.
Obviously we would like the inventor of the procedure to be compensated, but is it worth depriving other people, or potentially them dying, to protect "intellectual property"?
https://annas-archive.org/torrents
This is way too soft of a punishment. If people can get away with attending a lesson there will not be enough risk in the risk reward analysis people do before violating people's copyrights.
Perhaps some kind of program run by the publishers could give free books to these people, to reduce the motivation for piracy of the books? Those that can afford it would still pay, of course.
That said, the current system is broken, so while this particular site is gone, z-library and anna's archive live on and won't be getting taken down any time zoon.
If purchasing isn't ownership, then piracy shouldn't be theft.
Buy a book? You now own a the right to read that book from whatever file. Subscribe to Disney+? You have the right to watch all the marvel movies. Even when those movies are chopped and re-edited into a massive full chronology.
If a digital store ceases operations, you retain the rights to the bits. Maybe you have to do some work to get access to them, but you’re perfectly within your rights to torrent those bits.
Heck, maybe you could like the rights management to distribution. Have a right to the bits? Please seed.
Making money on textbooks by selling them to students at premium prices is despicable and is a poverty of mind for the future. Course tuition should include necessary book access. We gain so much more as a civilisation by sharing within academia that there needs to be a change in the way that the publishing industry treats these kinds of “violations “.