What kind of fairness can there be in charging for stolen books?
I believe in free access to education, but charging for these books they have no rights to is a whole other thing.
I believe in free access to education, but charging for these books they have no rights to is a whole other thing.
That being said, 10 downloads/day feels a bit restrictive to me. I'd get if it was 100, or 50, heck, maybe even 20. I mean, I don't appreciate that it's not mirrorable in the first place, but maybe they cannot afford it, I don't know... But 10 feels less than somebody researching a new topic might need to access in a day, even if he won't read them all immediately.
…That being said as well, it has some really nice UI. I wish somebody did it for Libgen.
Without sarcasm, I don't think the bandwidth bill cares that you find it restrictive. That even more than a handful are free every day for every account is honestly a lot, since that means virtually nobody will need to contribute to the costs they're collectively incurring. And if you're unable to pay, you can still skim a few dozen books (making two or three accounts isn't that hard to do by hand) every day, and go back to any you've already downloaded previously too. And offer them to friends to offload the server.
8 times outta 10, the book would be there.
And if we also count papers, which this site provides too — easily.
I realize that neither source will satisfy many of the people on HN, simply because there is a need for current technical books.
Total compliance with the regulatory capture of publishing companies? Full support of the landgrab claims of the Disney corporation et al?
You don't have to be an anarchist to look at the status quo and think some amount of civil disobedience is the correct, proper and right thing to do. Also believing that a claim, fully Disney supported, that such an amount of civil disobedience is somehow ethically evil is, in fact, somewhat disreputable. As disreputable as the insanely high journal subscription fees for taxpayer funded research, for example.
The publishing companies chose this path willingly and with prejudice for their profit turning the relevant law against the people. Are they reputable given they did so? It's hardly an outlying position around here to think they really aren't anything of the sort. Refusing to accept that on mass, until appropriate reform is supported and enacted could be considered quite worthwhile.
You may of course, disagree.
Of course, access to publicly funded research is another issue altogether (and one that should consider patents as well as copyrights).
The question becomes, how many of those targets of "civil disobedience" have earned that privilege and how many are simply collateral damage? Also, ideally, civil disobedience should be aimed towards changing laws rather than people simply taking what they want.
I said "some amount" and you don't disagree. We're not discussing what that precise amount is or how it should be targeted, that's a different discussion and can be framed in multiple, competing ways.
Feel free to lay out what you think is the correct amount and correctly targeted but even if you are wildly wrong in your thoughts, your being wrong doesn't make anyone else with differing thoughts about that amount and targeting disreputable, even if they are for some other reason.
There is a legitimate argument that the law should always be followed and any law-breaking is inherently disreputable. It's not my argument although I acknowledge it and isn't fashionable nowadays given how that must be applied to, for example, the civil rights movement & Dr King.
It's a figure of speech, not a comment on what they do.
Well they are providing a great public service and their system takes money to maintain. It's just a small fee.