Iraqi book market culture
-
This post did not contain any content.
And it doesn't rain
-
Can anyone from Iraq confirm?
Nice try, Dubya
-
That's pretty smart until you learn that "the thief sells"
Or that "the drunkard urinates on books for fun"
-
I also don't steal. I download my books from online copies, which is copying, not stealing.
Cool, you hate creatives and feel entitled to their work on the basis of semantics
-
This post did not contain any content.
Yes, but do they sort by the Dewey decimal system?
-
Cool, you hate creatives and feel entitled to their work on the basis of semantics
wrote on last edited by [email protected]on the basis of semantics
It's not semantics when "stealing" results in the loss of the original by the owner while "copying" just results in a new one being created.
TL;DR:
die mad -
on the basis of semantics
It's not semantics when "stealing" results in the loss of the original by the owner while "copying" just results in a new one being created.
TL;DR:
die madPublishers don't lose money when I download their products, but I wish they did.
-
That's pretty smart until you learn that "the thief sells"
Or even "the bored shithead sets fire to things"
-
on the basis of semantics
It's not semantics when "stealing" results in the loss of the original by the owner while "copying" just results in a new one being created.
TL;DR:
die madThat’s a semantic point. The truth is that artists deserve to be paid for their work. Whether you “copy” or “steal”, you’re getting the work without paying the creator. That’s fundamentally shitty behavior.
-
Publishers don't lose money when I download their products, but I wish they did.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Too bad. Because it's being redistributed through a third party, you aren't even stealing a negligible amount of electricity, bandwidth, or CPU time from them. Damn, when you think about it, it's just not "stealing" in any capacity, is it?
-
This post did not contain any content.
Those poor books 🥲
-
Me, stealing every pdf I can find:
But the reader does not steal, the clear logical conclusion is that piracy isn't theft if you read the book.
-
And it doesn't rain
It’s Iraq, not Arrakis.
-
That’s a semantic point. The truth is that artists deserve to be paid for their work. Whether you “copy” or “steal”, you’re getting the work without paying the creator. That’s fundamentally shitty behavior.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Okay, but I literally just expressed how they're fundamentally, pragmatically different while you keep reaching for the word "semantics". You can still disagree that it's wrong to copy – that's not what I'm trying to litigage. To call it only semantically different from stealing is asinine.
-
This post did not contain any content.
But what if the thief steals the books not to read them, but just to fill their house with books and make themselves seem erudite and intelligent?
I'm imagining the most extreme version of this, where a man is living in a house that is a veritable library. Yet, they're actually illiterate.
-
Okay, but I literally just expressed how they're fundamentally, pragmatically different while you keep reaching for the word "semantics". You can still disagree that it's wrong to copy – that's not what I'm trying to litigage. To call it only semantically different from stealing is asinine.
I never said it was only semantically different, only that you were making a semantic argument: namely, citing the semantic distinction between copying and stealing as grounds for one being acceptable and the other not (“stealing” is wrong but I’m “copying”), ignoring that the injustice against the work’s creator is not pragmatically different. Practically speaking, the author is equally robbed whether you “copy” or “steal”; therefore, arguing that copying is not stealing obscures the heart of the matter behind a semantic distinction.
-
I never said it was only semantically different, only that you were making a semantic argument: namely, citing the semantic distinction between copying and stealing as grounds for one being acceptable and the other not (“stealing” is wrong but I’m “copying”), ignoring that the injustice against the work’s creator is not pragmatically different. Practically speaking, the author is equally robbed whether you “copy” or “steal”; therefore, arguing that copying is not stealing obscures the heart of the matter behind a semantic distinction.
That wasn't me you were talking to initially; that was TheLeadenSea. You'll have to ask them, not me.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Here people even "steal" books from public bookcases and sell them.
For people who aren't familiar, let me explain:
These public bookcases are a weatherproof shelf, old phone booth or something in the streets. The concept is you can take any book and leave any book. There are no written rules and you can keep a book if you like or just read it and put it back. In recent years people started to scan the barcodes and checked what books they can sell. There is a debate going on if people should mark these books or not, so they can't be sold. -
That wasn't me you were talking to initially; that was TheLeadenSea. You'll have to ask them, not me.
Oh, fair enough
-
Cool, you hate creatives and feel entitled to their work on the basis of semantics
You don't deserve the downvotes, you're right. If everyone used the "iTs NoT sTeAlInG" argument then no digital works would ever be profitable and everyone would lose.
