Z-Library is back, alas

[ownedbycats]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

You couldn't make french fries due to unbreakable DRM?

Internet of Things is getting out of hand

[haertig]

Originally Posted by issybird

...your interpretation of the original intent notwithstanding.

Actually, stated original intent, per the OP:

Originally Posted by issybird

Because I thought it could lead to an interesting discussion about piracy

Just trying to follow the OP's wishes. I'm fine with thread drift. I enjoy discussing anything.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by haertig

Actually, stated original intent, per the OP:

And yet you deleted a very important part of the post:

Originally Posted by issybird

For starters

In any case, no need to moderate from the sidelines. Just report a post and let the mods handle it. Again, Guidelines; read them.

Just trying to follow the OP's wishes

Oh, yes. As in:

Originally Posted by haertig

I have to return an air fryer I bought from Amazon. I'll look for this reason for return, and use it if available.

Originally Posted by haertig

Hey, we shouldn't laugh. Remember when Kuerig [sic] built DRM into their coffee makers so you could only use their coffee pods? It was easy enough to bypass for people that had an IQ above 17, but they did try to implement it!

You’ve outed yourself. So now:

Knock it off. Your intentions are transparent and further posts meant to derail the thread will be deleted. If you have issues, take them to PM, as also stated above.

[theducks]

I find it odd the a small class of intellectual property (creators) have protections that extend waaay past their life.
As someone that spent most of my life in High Tech, we had many a long night, working a weekend, away from family, to meet a product deadline.
Authors face deadlines.
Coders face deadlines.
Ad creators face deadlines.
Engineers face deadlines.

All these folk create.
Why should a small group get paid long past the time on the job?

[issybird]

Originally Posted by theducks

I find it odd the a small class of intellectual property (creators) have protections that extend waaay past their life.
As someone that spent most of my life in High Tech, we had many a long night, working a weekend, away from family, to meet a product deadline.
Authors face deadlines.
Coders face deadlines.
Ad creators face deadlines.
Engineers face deadlines.

All these folk create.
Why should a small group get paid long past the time on the job?

The major differences are that coders etc. are paid at the time, that their labor belongs to someone else, so to speak, and that the remuneration is fixed, unlike authors who aren’t paid as they write (except for an elite) and who work for themselves for an uncertain payoff. What bothers me most is the retroactive gift to authors who signed on for 28 + 28 from publication date and have gotten life +95 (in the US).

[ownedbycats]

Originally Posted by theducks

All these folk create.
Why should a small group get paid long past the time on the job?

Because Disney likes the money.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by haertig

Hey, we shouldn't laugh. Remember when Kuerig built DRM into their coffee makers so you could only use their coffee pods? It was easy enough to bypass for people that had an IQ above 17, but they did try to implement it!

Having posted this before reading to the end of the thread...

The system that inspired this video?

[kandwo]

I mostly read PD books or books available from my library. On the rare occasion I want something else I'm not going to buy an e-book. Why? They are overpriced, have DRM, are watermarked ("so we know if you have shared it illegally"), etc. So I should pay to be treated like a criminal when the pirates are offering a good service and treating me like a human being? No, thank you.

Until these practices change I see it almost as my moral duty to pirate. "Vote with your dollar", yes, that's what I'm doing.

If the author offers direct payment to them at a reasonable price at their website, I'm opting for that. See Doctorow et al. I'm happy to support authors I like when treated with respect and given the benefit of the doubt.

[Aleron Ives]

Originally Posted by ownedbycats

There's also that meme about where if you buy a DVD of a movie, you put the disc in then have to go through dozen unskippable warnings, trailers for other movies, etc. With piracy, you download the movie and then play it.

There's definitely an aspect of vindictiveness to piracy. "If you're going to treat me like a criminal either way, at least give me the benefit of getting the content for free, first."

Originally Posted by kandwo

Until these practices change I see it almost as my moral duty to pirate. "Vote with your dollar", yes, that's what I'm doing.

I once watched an interesting libertarian debate about copyright and patents, and the pro side (that we should abolish them) contended that the system is so corrupt that we have a moral duty to defy it by pirating everything possible. The real kicker was that he was a patent lawyer. I guess spending his professional life rolling around in the muck gave him a distaste for it.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by kandwo

I mostly read PD books or books available from my library. On the rare occasion I want something else I'm not going to buy an e-book. Why? They are overpriced, have DRM, are watermarked ("so we know if you have shared it illegally"), etc. So I should pay to be treated like a criminal when the pirates are offering a good service and treating me like a human being? No, thank you.

Until these practices change I see it almost as my moral duty to pirate. "Vote with your dollar", yes, that's what I'm doing.

If the author offers direct payment to them at a reasonable price at their website, I'm opting for that. See Doctorow et al. I'm happy to support authors I like when treated with respect and given the benefit of the doubt.

Moderator Notice
This a perfect example of "Advocating Piracy" vs "Discussing Piracy." Your post is the former. And it runs afoul of the rules of this forum. While I thank you for providing such a clear example of advocacy to those who may have trouble making the distinction, you may consider this your only warning on the subject. Post something like it again and you will be banned from Mobileread.

[DiapDealer]

Moderator Notice
To be clear: the conversation about piracy may continue. It's only the "I'm morally obligated to pirate ebooks because they're too expensive (and ebooks are just too darn difficult to buy and/or read)" tripe that's going to get blasted every time. It's quite simple: do not post to this site that you're pirating ebooks, or have pirated them (either overtly or in any kind of "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" manner), or post links to pirate sites--let alone try to pretend you're somehow justified in doing so--and you have nothing to worry about.

Carry on.

[kandwo]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

This a perfect example of "Advocating Piracy" vs "Discussing Piracy." Your post is the former. And it runs afoul of the rules of this forum. While I thank you for providing such a clear example of advocacy to those who may have trouble making the distinction, you may consider this your only warning on the subject. Post something like it again and you will be banned from Mobileread.

Seeing as it's that offensive a topic on the forum that one gets one warning before a ban, I have to agree with a previous poster that it's an odd choice for a moderator to start a topic like this. Why not just avoid the topic altogether?

Oh, sure, we can discuss freely about privacy. But only if we're neutral or negative, since any positive comment would surely be construed as advocacy? That doesn't seem like a fair exchange of ideas to me. Nor do I see myself as advocating or damning piracy by stating what my moral obligation is. I don't necessarily share moral values with others or require of them to share mine or act according to them.

But I'm sure that's not an interesting distinction to you, so I shan't bore you further. I'll leave this piracy conversation to those interested in the pure abstract or condemnation aspect of it.

Feel free to ban me to all seven hells if this post can also be construed as "commenting on moderating policy" or any some such. You obviously are not very keen on giving the benefit of the doubt either, if you are that trigger happy.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by kandwo

Oh, sure, we can discuss freely about privacy. But only if we're neutral or negative, since any positive comment would surely be construed as advocacy? That doesn't seem like a fair exchange of ideas to me.

There is a distinction between “This is how people justify piracy” and “this is why people pirate” and “This is why piracy is good” and “this is why I pirate” that isn’t that hard to grasp.

As for the article, Ars Technica is a highly respected news site owned by major magazine publisher Condé Nast. I thought the article interesting and the news important. We don’t tolerate advocacy of piracy at MobileRead, but that doesn’t mean we don’t think it exists. Again, not a difficult distinction.

As the OP, I’d like to see an end to the meta comments although people are free to go where the topic takes them otherwise.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by kandwo

But I'm sure that's not an interesting distinction to you, so I shan't bore you further. I'll leave this piracy conversation to those interested in the pure abstract or condemnation aspect of it.

Great. If you're not capable of understanding that it's impossible to attempt to justify ones own acts of piracy without advocating piracy, then it's probably best you leave the conversation to others.

[rantanplan]

I'm not sure where that leaved us. The "strike" against Z-Library was merely a pyrrhus win that actually left them more resilient and in a better position than before. And even if they were to go away, there are hundreds of similar places that will take over.