←back to thread

572 points bookofjoe | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
throwaway091290 ◴[] No.41862208[source]
My kindle paperwhite is my favorite tech that I own. It has changed by life significantly for the better and allowed me to cut down the time I waste on doom-scrolling social media. I find a book on shadow libraries, convert them into epub format and then send them over to my kindle via USB. Calibre helps in all this. I have read close to a hundred book now--all for no dime.
replies(2): >>41862558 #>>41864537 #
tene80i ◴[] No.41862558[source]
Shame you don’t see any need to compensate writers for your enjoyment of their work.
replies(2): >>41862764 #>>41863316 #
widowlark ◴[] No.41862764[source]
Not OP, but a few things:

- the authors are unfairly compensated by amazon and the public libraries due to publisher issues with ebooks already. OP is hardly contributing to this disparity.

- I choose to purchase expensive copies of books I love - but the digital copy is the one I read.

replies(1): >>41864032 #
tene80i ◴[] No.41864032[source]
The fact that the situation for authors is already poor hardly makes it better to opt not to compensate them. If you or the OP feel that you’re only playing a small part, that’s between you and your conscience.

And sure, if you’re buying some copy of the book and downloading a convenient second copy, that’s totally different. I was responding to the OP being pleased about not having spent anything at all (except on the kindle itself presumably).

replies(2): >>41865115 #>>41867268 #
komali2 ◴[] No.41865115[source]
I was thinking about this recently when a friend group argued that someone getting out of paying hospital bills is unethical since doctors are just as much victims of America's bad healthcare system as patients (due to exploitative pay structures I guess). To me this feels like some kind of victim blaming. The writer isn't getting paid (much), the reader is paying too much to a stranger, yet somehow the reader is the bad guy if they opt out of the process.

I get that the idea is "if everyone opted out the writer would get nothing instead of peanuts!" Or maybe the company shafting the writer would go under and direct sales would happen instead?

replies(2): >>41867144 #>>41868984 #
1. tene80i ◴[] No.41867144{3}[source]
The difference is that a reader isn’t in any way a victim. They’re choosing to read a book. And if they don’t pay, the writer will often simply be paid less, to the tune of the royalties on that one book. So, yes, that is stiffing someone.

If everyone opted out you could force major change, sure, but in that case you shouldn’t be reading the book. That’s a true boycott. Reading without paying isn’t principled - it’s just cheap. And if you don’t actually organise it achieves nothing - except stiffing the author.

replies(1): >>41871174 #
2. widowlark ◴[] No.41871174[source]
if you pay, both the author and the consumer are taken advantage of. If you don't, its only the author.