Hacker News Reader

Comment by Al-Khwarizmi | Hacker News Reader

We have no real choice. Self-publishing means that the book doesn't count at all in the CV for grant applications, tenure applications, etc. Only the very top scientists that no longer have to fight for all these things can afford to make that "personal choice". For the rest, it's suicidal.

I also have a book at a major publisher, with an outrageous price, and when I saw it "pirated" I only felt joy at the fact that more people will get to read it and thus my work is more meaningful. And I also downloaded it myself, because I actually didn't have it in PDF, only in physical form.

View on HN

I have published academic books like you, and I never had a problem with this once I understood the consequences of traditional publishing. These books are cataloged in good libraries and available in Amazon. If people don't have money they can go to a library and get a free copy. The day I want a book freely available in the web I will just write one and post it on in my web page. I like the idea that authors have the option to go one route or another. Pirating books doesn't enter into this equation.

Going to a library and getting a free copy is exactly what people are doing. The library is online, freely accessible without discrimination.

Since when have we asked authors permission to add their book to a library? In many places (including the US) if you publish a book it is mandatory to submit it to a library.

I have never seen an illegal library, have you? Don't try to confuse a respectable institution with pirate web sites that didn't ask permission to anyone to do their illegal thing.

What is the difference, asside from someone deeming copying 'illegal'?

There is nothing illegal about copying per se, as long as there are no provisions against it. This is a basic principle of human society. For example, there is nothing illegal about walking without shoes, as long as there is no regulation preventing it as it's the case at some government offices. Your reasoning is just trying to throw away our society principles to justify your behavior. My main contention is not that we shouldn't have free information, but that it is unethical to disregard existing laws just because you don't like them.

There is nothing unethical in braking the law. It is illegal to disregard existing laws, ethics is a different matter. There were many racist, sexist, oppressing laws in the past that we consider unethical today, and may even celebrate people who broke those unethical laws in protest to authorities and 'the society'.

True, there are situations where breaking the law is the ethical thing to do. However, you are trying to put access to a copyrighted book at the same level as fighting against sexism and racial oppression. Unless you can show that these situations are closely comparable (little clue: they're not), you're just creating an excuse to avoid following laws that don't benefit yourself.

In the case of copyrighted books or research papers, it could be a matter of life and death for the user, if we are talking about access to various types of medical research, for example.

Research papers in medicine are written for specialists, who already have access to them by means of employment. I don't know how access to that literature can save lives otherwise. Even if that was the case, it is a very far fetched way to prove that you need generalized civil disobedience with regard to copyright law.

In a lot of countries in the world, medical institutions or individuals don't have enough money to pay for access to research and books (lib-gen, the sister project of sci-hub also serves pirated books). And I agree, that might not be a proof we need civil disobedience in general (with regard to copyright law), but I think it does show that copyright law doesn't work well for medical research. I think similar could be proved for other areas covered by copyright law, but that would be a long discussion.

>Since when have we asked authors permission to add their book to a library?

As far as I know, libraries in the US purchase their materials like anyone else. They have the right to lend due to the Doctrine of First Sale[1], because what they lend they legally own.

>In many places (including the US) if you publish a book it is mandatory to submit it to a library.

According to Wikipedia, in the US publishers are required to submit two copies of a published work to the Library of Congress[0], not to distribute copies to public libraries.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_deposit#United_States

[1]http://www.ala.org/advocacy/copyright/copyrightarticle/libra...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com