←back to thread

Z-Library Helps Students to Overcome Academic Poverty, Study Finds

(torrentfreak.com)
326 points hn_acker | 4 comments | 20 Nov 24 23:36 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
bastard_op ◴[21 Nov 24 01:17 UTC] No.42200020[source]▶
Some 28 years ago I taught myself everything could get/find from graphic design, basic development, server administration, etc, all downloading commercial warez over dial-up with AOL and Usenet. I didn't need a class or subscriptions, with every software and book I could have wanted, I had the best lab in the world with any software available I could want with piracy.

Fast forward 30 years now it's mostly the same as it was, only open source replaced all the commercial, and little has changed that I can still get the rest too. You can pay as much or little as you want in life if you know how.

replies(3): >>42200079 #>>42201460 #>>42202320 #
jjtheblunt ◴[21 Nov 24 01:26 UTC] No.42200079[source]▶
You said you relied on piracy.

But piracy means you were in spirit and partly in reality stealing the work product of those who learned a few years before you.

Would you want your work value to be diluted by piracy?

replies(13): >>42200133 #>>42200160 #>>42200255 #>>42200354 #>>42200434 #>>42200443 #>>42200466 #>>42200569 #>>42200940 #>>42201017 #>>42201024 #>>42201137 #>>42201628 #
LocalH ◴[21 Nov 24 02:22 UTC] No.42200443[source]▶
Piracy isn't stealing. Legally or morally.

You know what is stealing? The heavily lengthened copyright term. Every day that has been and will be added to that, is a day that was stolen from the public ownership of the work, as prescribed in copyright law.

replies(1): >>42201192 #
1. hresvelgr ◴[21 Nov 24 04:41 UTC] No.42201192[source]▶
Copyright and patents actively stifle innovation. I think a statute of 5 years for both is acceptable. If you fail to be commercially viable in 5 years it probably wasn't on the cards but at least someone can learn from the work and continue with it after it lapses.
replies(2): >>42201230 #>>42201740 #
2. PittleyDunkin ◴[21 Nov 24 04:49 UTC] No.42201230[source]▶
Both are blatantly anti-competitive measures.
replies(1): >>42201684 #
3. tastyfreeze ◴[21 Nov 24 06:27 UTC] No.42201684[source]▶
That is the point. A legal time limited monopoly. But it has to be time limited or progress is stalled. Five years is plenty of lead time to be remain ahead of competition.
4. ashoeafoot ◴[21 Nov 24 06:39 UTC] No.42201740[source]▶
That world we life in sure feels innovative ..not. 1 new thing per day,with 8 billion humans alive and connected. The web promising the new edison or tesla, meanwhile those two lifed in a time of mass book copying without repercussions. Copyright is toxic, extractive landlording , mining innovationspaces with penalties and bureaucracies. Its deeply anti-libertarian on an individual level.

People should be allowed to violate copyright all they want, but if they create something comercial the "inspiring work" as derived from the consumption history should get a kickback.