I can think of a better analogy than littering for pirating an item at more than 1 place. When you litter, you add to the trash. If everyone littered, it would be awful. But if everyone pirated the same content on a different site/platform/protocol, it would still be 1 pirated item.
The better, IMO, analogy, is if you have an ad glued somewhere, say at a bus stop. Another person comes with their ad and wants to glue it. They glue it over the previous ad. The amount of ads visible remains the same. There's a negligible disadvantage for the city - they have to haul away twice as many paper. But most importantly, the amount of visual clutter hasn't been increased if the second ad is glued over the first one.
That analogy works if you're against piracy and ads on public places, of course.
People trying to justify piracy was tired in 1997 and it's embarassing now.
It would be better if you just embrace the fact that you're unwilling to pay for creative effort and OK depriving creators of money - that isn't my ethos but it's at least honest and consistent.
Arguing that piracy doesn't hurt someone is trivially wrong, lazy, and self-centered.
This isn't even abandonware. If you don't want to buy the book, go to a library or read a publicly accessible blog, but piracy is bullshit full stop.
People trying to justify anti-piracy was embarrassing in 1997. It's petty and sanctimonious now.
Not everyone lives in rich Western countries with cushy Silicon Valley pay grades; lots of folks are young, studying; they may be temporarily underemployed, or simply have to prioritise other costs.
Knowledge is a right, not the privilege of a moneyed minority.
I'm a bibliophile. My current library stands at over 600 books, I'd wager I've purchased around a thousand in my lifetime. Please shed any assumption that this is the only way I read.
I am one of the book industry's better customers. This is pretty typical, AFAIUI. We see study after study suggest that pirates spend more on music and film than non-pirates.[1] Just the other week, I bought a physical copy of a book I'd first read from LibGen.
I pirate when I'm broke, or when living somewhere where certain books are hard to come by, as I did for a good 15-20 years of my life.
I have zero qualms about anything I've pirated. Not because of my prior "support" to authors, but because I'm aware most people in the world cannot afford to spend 65 dollars (plus postage) on a book.
Let me invert your claim on rights. What right do US lawyers have to deprive the majority of reading? Why should only the wealthy be able to access quality material on Linux? There is a particular irony in your gatekeeping of knowledge on an operating system which is designed to be free and accessible for all.
Imagine a world in which there was no Libgen, or Anna's Archive, or people sharing PDFs on forums. Would this be a better world? These things exist today, authors still get paid. In a world without, we'd have worse engineers, dumber people.
Frankly, I wish book piracy was much more mainstream. I'd much rather everyone was sat down of an evening with a copy of Linux Basics for Hackers, or The Leopard, or God-help-me, even Harry-chuffing-Potter, than doom-scrolling bile on their social media platform of choice.
Piracy is, all told, globally, a service to humanity, and we'd be better off with more of it.
In this case it does. You can't funnel huge amounts through a coin with usually small volume and market cap and expect any sense of anonymity or privacy. The delta makes it obvious. It would probably be visible via movements on markets too.
For smaller amounts this is not a problem for the same coin and network.
You are not responding to the debunking of your "Value doesn't have anything to do with utility" claim.
The only relevant thing I can see here is that yes, the volume is too low to provide any sense of untracability for the scenario discussed. It might for paying your VPN subscription.
reply