Many poor or downtrodden members of society, working on educating themselves in a school or through self-study, may turn to the piracy of higher level books on sciences and humanities. Do you think it is ethical to pirate or distribute costly or "premium" textbooks and other high level reading material in the name of free knowledge?
no.
stealing is immoral however you put it.
but, if someone stole something from you first, and then if you steal the same amount, not the same, from the thief (provided it is still of the same kind (ie, money and not people or pets)) then it is moral.
For example, going on welfare is completely moral if you stay on it only long enough to counter the amount of extra taxes the government has forcibly taken from you.
>>51588735
Yes. I use it to read up on new papers related to my rare disease. Roughly 200 papers are submitted each year, of which 10-30% is something I'm interested in reading (treatment research progress, new insight into the pathomechanisms, etc). With library genesis I have access to all the papers also found in pubmed (which I use to keep track of new papers). Without it, I'd have to resort to my uni library, but in a few years I'll no longer have access to that (and I didn't 3 years ago either). As a consequence of having a background in bio and having read so much about my disease I've become pretty well acquainted with the literature, more so than my neurologist who've I've seen for the better part of a decade. It has allowed me to compile sources and information that I share for others with a special interest my disease that is not researchers or work in the medical field. I'll probably write a book too at some point..
Another example is that I've probably read hundreds of scientific papers in relation to posting on reddit (yeah I know.., yada yada). Often you'll have to resort to the scientific literature to find answers to difficult questions, and libgen is great to find all those obscure/rare papers on niche topics.
A third example from today: I've recently gotten diagnosed with ADD and gotten Ritalin. Before taking my first capsule, I looked up the effect of stimulants on my disease. And wouldn't you know, there were a really obscure paper on the topic, I'm 100% sure neither my neurologist or psychiatrist have read it. With libgen I downloaded it and skimmed through it. The conclusion: I can take Ritalin without major risk, though it will cause some quirky effects related to sweating, pupil dilation and possibly heart rate that only occurs in people with my condition. Which is good to know, and something I wouldn't have known otherwise.
In conclusion I think all knowledge should be free, and I think the current publishing system is cancerous.
>>51588912
>stealing is immoral however you put it.
If I steel food from a very wealthy scumbag to feed my starving children, that is morally O.K. in my book. Morality is relative, hence applied consequentialism is the only way to go about it.
>>51588912
Piracy and stealing are two completely different actions, though. A pirated copy does not mean a lost sale, since someone poor enough wouldn't even spend the money otherwise.
>>51588912
You are essentially suggesting sharia law. Eye for eye treatment and related actions are unjust and only cause more problems.
>>51588912
This. People who think they have the right to steal stuff most of the time are just 14 year old boys with their allowance already spent.
>>51589009
Everyone would steal everything from everyone if there weren't consequences. Only a fool wouldn't steal if the chance were there and no consequence were guaranteed. You get no diploma or reward in heaven for being "morally upright" when nobody is looking.
Say you get cancer and you need to make a life and death decision. To make that decision you need information. You can talk to your oncologist, but he/she might be biased, and no one oncologist have the capacity to know everything about cancer, not to mention keeping up to date with every new advancement being published daily. If you have access to the scientific literature you might discover a paper about a cure for your cancer that was published that day, or you might read papers that help inform your decision what er that might be, say whether or not to take a medication or treatment offer. If this information is locked down behind a pay wall, you are forced to rely on inferior information derived from the literature and the limited capacity of your oncologist. In my opinion, the latter is unacceptable.
>>51588938
Good man, anon.
>>51589053
You must be black.
>>51589271
I'm white. If you and I lived 15000 years ago, I'd steal your food and impregnate your wife behind your back. There is a reason my kind have stuck around.
>>51589305
>there's a reason why my kind have stuck around
Because they're too fat to move anywhere else?
NO DIRECT VICTIM
O
D
I
R
C
T
V
C
T
I
M
>>51589332
>Because they're too fat to move anywhere else?
No, because stealing and rape are valid strategies in nature that increase fitness, giving them a selective advantage. If everyone is honest, the one guy who isn't will reap huge benefits. If everyone is dishonest, this strategy isn't effective any more. Honesty has a function, and is balanced with dishonesty dynamically due to the force of natural selection working on a population over time.
In other words, you'd be licking my cum out of your gfs pussy if it weren't for the pampered society we live in today.
>>51588735
How did Jesus able to feed the people with 5 breads and 2 fishes
He pirated it
>>51588938
Is that disease huntingtons, anon?
>>51589460
No, it's a rare PNS related disease, Huntingtons is CNS.
>>51588985
No. That "scumbag" earned his wealth. You stole it from his. You need does not enslave another to provide for you without any benifit in return . You are the thief here, and immoral.
>>51588999
A pirated copy is a lost sale. This is a completely new medium. Just because it is easy to pirate, does not mean it is right to do so. That is why DRM is implemented. If you wrote a book, and one guy brought it while he distributed it to everyone else, you would have "sold" (according to you) a thousand books but paid for only one. That is plain and clear stealing.
>>51589004
>muh muslim
>muh jooz
Nigger sharia law is basically barabrism. They don't understand logic and reason. They just follow whatever stupid shit their holy book tells them to.
This is justice, you faggot. Go read up a few books on property rights, and how another man's need does not entitle him to your property unconditionally.
>>51589155
>locked behind a pay wall
then pay the $5, nigger.
>>51589053
>if there were no consequences
but there are. Even if you steal from somewhere ina situation where stealing is acceptable by law, the man who created that object will sooner or later stop, because it brings to him nothing but pain. Thta is when you will die, due to your own incompetence, for you could only live through handouts from superior men.
>>51588938
So the person who wrote that paper deserves nothing? Even if he put a price to his paper? You are justifying stealing because you think your need trumps another man's liberty.
There's no harm done if the original writer distributed it for free but then some company put a paywall on it. Then you can pirate that and still be moral.
>>51589608
/pol/ pls go
>>51589615
>implying /pol/ supports individual freedom
Did you even read my post?
>>51588735
Very simple rule: it's okay if you wouldn't use the thing if you had to pay for it. It's like if someone gifts you a very expensive car - you'd drive it because it's there but you wouldn't have bought it yourself. Companies lose *a lot* less money from piracy than they like to think - I bet the vast majority of Photoshop users would simply switch to GIMP before paying any money for it.
>>51589655
>Nigger sharia law is basically barabrism. They don't understand logic and reason. They just follow whatever stupid shit their holy book tells them to
are you talking about bible belt faggots or - oh no you're being an anti-semitic stormfront faggot.
>>51589608
>then pay the $5, nigger.
It's $20 per article, faggot, and you easily read 10-20+ of them per session.
>>51589608
>but there are. Even if you steal from somewhere ina situation where stealing is acceptable by law, the man who created that object will sooner or later stop, because it brings to him nothing but pain. Thta is when you will die, due to your own incompetence, for you could only live through handouts from superior men.
There will always be more than one sucker to steal from, and stealing doesn't have to mean not gathering stuff your self. A smart individual gets as much resources he can, and then steal on top of that to get ahead of the competition.
>>51589608
>So the person who wrote that paper deserves nothing? Even if he put a price to his paper? You are justifying stealing because you think your need trumps another man's liberty.
>There's no harm done if the original writer distributed it for free but then some company put a paywall on it. Then you can pirate that and still be moral.
You have absolutely no clue how any of this works, do you. A researches is always paid for doing his research prior to even making the paper. Once he is done writing up his research into a paper, he signs off all his right to it to the publisher, and in return he gets to publish it in a scientific journal. Then the publisher locks the paper behind a paywall and demands large sums of money from universities so they can rent access to the paper. In the research community there is a very strong wish to go all open access, but the way the system is constructed now you need to publish in a high ranked journal. There are basically two big scientific publishers who have a duopoly on all journals, and they provide next to zero value, all they do is host the papers on line (which costs next to nothing these days).
>>51588735
All information should be free.
>>51589811
this. i'm a grad student and i can tell you that no money comes from publications. it's all grants and whatnot, which we get from various organizations (like the NSF, etc...).
Publications only serve to establish competence as researchers. A long CV with publications in exclusive journals help us get careers at top tier universities and - to an extent - help us get grants (although the proposals themselves tend to stand on their own).
>>51589608
>No. That "scumbag" earned his wealth. You stole it from his.
99% of wealthy people either got lucky or gain their wealth through shady deals, corruption, insider trading, camaraderie, outright theft or all of those combined. But you're probably a wage slave that still naively believe everyone can strike it rich if they just work hard and stay honest, kek.
>stealing is immoral
what if you live in space, fuel doesn't magic itself into engines.
>muh black and white morality
>pay for knowledge
no. end of discussion.
>>51589608
>You need does not enslave another to provide for you without any benifit in return . You are the thief here, and immoral.
He has more than he need, I urgently need it to survive. If he doesn't give it to me, he is the immoral one. Stealing from an immoral person is morally justifiable, if the need outweigh the damage.
Everything on the internet is mine.
>>51589671
>strong stance on religion means I'm a stromfag
pls
>>51589759
That's an immoral man, you idiot.
>>51589811
Did you read my post? I specifically stated that it is fine to porate as long as the publisher levies an extra fee for it, a fee from which no part goes to the writer.
>>51589852
>let me just assume everyone is immoral to justify stealing
>>51589903
Altruism is wrong. Give me a fucking reason, faggot. Don't state and rehash sentences without any justification.
>>51589870
elaborate your post.
If you are mining fuel from other planets (where no communities/laws exist) then it is fine.
Either you're right or wrong, nigger. Being half-right still means you're wrong.
>"pay for knowledge"
I'm not generalizing it
>>51590032
>Altruism is wrong.
Egoism is wrong, and immoral. If you believe otherwise you are scum and should be euthanized.
>>51590032
>That's an immoral man, you idiot.
So what?
>>51590032
>Did you read my post? I specifically stated that it is fine to porate as long as the publisher levies an extra fee for it, a fee from which no part goes to the writer.
Did you read my post? The publishers essentially steal from the scientists and then resell their work for profit. They are the thieves.
>>51590032
>let me just assume everyone is immoral to justify stealing
>Let me just assume everyone is moral to justify my opposite viewpoint
>>51588735
i don't believe in intellectual property. information must be free.
>>51590100
>altruism is correct egoism is wrong
still spouting statements without explanation. Bet you can't explain it and will either reply with an insuly or ad hominem.
It would still be theft if only a small group was moral, faggot. If you're half-right you're still wrong.
>>51588735
Let me put it this way:
It's ok to pirate if you're a poorfag
If you're a spoilt brat with wealthy parents and still pirate you deserve prison time.
Also people making money off a product they didn't buy isn't cool either
>>51588735
Yes. If anything it would be immoral to withhold such information from people by means of a high financial bar.
I understand the creators of textbooks need to earn money to be able to make the textbooks in the first place, but I believe it should be more important that knowledge is freely accessible.
>>51588735
>Do you think it is ethical to pirate or distribute costly or "premium" textbooks and other high level reading material in the name of free knowledge?
Yes.
There's no quantifiable difference (to the proprietor) between pirating something and simply not buying it at all.
yes it is ethical op
