/lit/ - Literature

I PIRATE ALMOST EVERY BOOK I READ, BUT EVERY AUTHOR IS LONG SINCE DEAD, JUST HASN'T YET FALLEN INTO PUBLIC DOMAIN.

I AM NOT PHASED.

authors should always aim to write a book that people would deem worthy of owning a physical copy of. this is irrelevant. quality work makes piracy a non issue.

Economically pirating is the same as simply not buying a book (or not watching a film, or not listening to an album.) Maybe if they put out quality material people would want to support it. Instead, they put out schlock, feel entitled to make money, and ruin any good rapport they have with potential customers by, instead of attempting to make material they would enjoy, further appeal to the lowest common denominator that caused people to turn away to begin with.

People aren't increasingly pirating material, they're increasingly not watching/reading/listening-to it. Countless studies have shown that the heaviest pirates spend more money than the typical consumer.

>>1707287
>>1707294 here
Thanks. You said it a lot better than I did.

By using the word "pirating" in this context your mind is slave to the corporations that invented the word.
People don't write "good literature" in the hopes of making a lot of money anyway. The only books that are bound to sell are trash like the shitty biographies of shitty celebrities.

Don't you guys like to hold the REAL book in your hands while reading it and then have all your books on a bookshelf so that you can look at all the books you read? I just don't understand how you guys can think its all fantastic to read on e-readers... Piracy or not, e-readers remove half the fun of reading books.

>>1707310
>have the fun of reading books
>holding the book and admiring it on the bookshelf

6/10

http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2010/01/booty-call.html

>>1707310
I never understood the need to keep books you've read. I rarely reread any books, so I usually give them away. I 18 books I've kept, despite having read hundreds in the last few years.

>>1707315
tl;dr:
Konrath prices his books reasonably (~$2.99), the incentive to spend 30 minutes on google in search of crappy torrents disappears.
"Legacy" publishers on the other hand take a huge bit of the price per book sold and insist on pricing their books at $10+, meaning piracy becomes a more viable option. (Or, even worse, the reader completely overlooks the title)
There is no reason to charge $10 for just data and then fuck the author of the book up the ass. The publishers are essentially killing themselves.

>>1707321
This. And I think he's right. I also think I'm going to go buy a book of his, see how it holds up. This faggot better not suck.

>>1707318

>Hurrr ur all weird why isn't everyone like me

I don't usually replay my video games often yet I keep them all. I don't see what's so wrong about keeping books that YOU BOUGHT.

>>1707329
Calm down chief. I didn't insult anyway, or even infer it was "wrong," just that I didn't get it.

>>1707318

>Buy expensive book
>read it once
>give it away


makes perfect sense. I once wanted to buy an ereader but I tried to read on one first. It was painful. Glad I didn't dump 200€ on a redundant gadget.

>>1707332

Well I don't get why you give your books away.

Without an e-reader I probably wouldn't have access to the voluminous amount of scholarly articles and texts that I have benefited from

this is my belief on piracy:
i am poor, very poor, im gonna go give plasma tomorrow so i can pay the electric bill i will pirate right now because i have no other option

when i finally finish college and make 60k plus a year i will buy buy buy books vidya, movies and music

everything is grotesquely over priced these days so i kind of see it as a loan, i get shit for free now, they get to suck me dry later,

thats how the world works

>>1707334
>>1707336
Well I buy paperbacks anyway. I find them a more inviting read, and generally fit in a pocket, y'know?

But for me, a book is to read, and beyond that, I don't get function from them. So, rather than discard them, I give them away. Often I loan them to people (push them on people,) and never bother to ask for them back, so, I'm sure only half were ever read again... But since I got no further use from them, I didn't want to keep them cluttering up the place.

hah, I just counted though, and I do have 18 books. I have 48 comic TPBs. I should give lots of those away too. At least the ones that have "ended."

And I totally get ereaders aren't for everyone. Me, I have no problems reading on a screen, though apparently most people get headaches from that. But I've definitely considered a Kindle. I'd like to get hands-on with one first though, y'know?

>>1707323
Don't worry, his work is quite good.

And if you don't like it, remember that you only paid $2.99 for it.

Ever heard of a library OP, and yet we still have good authors

I don't pirate books. I usually get classics or books for low price or free (public domain.) I live in a college-town and they watch the internet here like a hawk, so I couldn't pirate even if I wanted to... I probably would pirate though, since I believe information should be free and I see no harm in it. Libraries are free, right?

OP here:

>>1707360
>>1707366

There is a huge difference between libraries and pirating. Stealing and borrowing isn't the same thing. If an author agrees to let libraries loan out his books, it is entirely his decision. People who borrow a book from the library and think that, "Hey, I want to have this book," will go out and buy that book. People who pirate books, on the other hand, have no need to buy the book because, in a sense, they already own it, whereas a book borrowed from the library will have to be returned (if you're not a complete asshole, that is). Besides, if the option is between buying a book or borrowing it from the library, many people will buy it for the sole reason that a lot of the books at the library are downright disgusting. To argue that piracy of books is okay because there are libraries is plain wrong, and if you think less egoistic, you'll realize that as well.

>implying the world isn't already full of james pattersons and hasn't been for decades

The market for quality contemporary fiction was dead before ereaders got big. Maybe they'll actually encourage people to explore more new authors.

Also, my captcha was "wang"

>>1707409
>Implying authors have a choice about their books being in libraries.

I have re-read a lot of my books and will undoubtedly read my favourites again and again in the future. Seeing them on my shelf every day encourages me to do this. I enjoy good books more with each additional read, too. The same principle applies with films and of course CDs. Books are just more of a commitment timewise. E-readers seem sterile and joyless to me, although I wouldn't rule out a Kindle in the future (if the price drops.)

But the film industry hasn't got worse and numbers of people visiting the cinema is higher than it has been for 30 years or so.

Plus, it's not like people have access to books for free for many years already?

i don't have an e-reader, but i do pirate comics and graphic novels, but i use it as a library. i get and read a shit ton of comics until i find some that i want to own, then i go buy it. This way, i make sure that my money goes to supporting only the best authors, increasing the general quality of the industry. also, authors don't get to choose to put their books in the library you idiot.

The publishing industry might die as less and less people read and piracy runs about, but that won't mean great authors will die out. Unless you consider fantasy writers to be great, then you're probably right.

Otherwise, a worthwhile author doesn't write for money.

>>1707432
>>1707444

A writer knows upon writing a book that it will most likely end up in a library somewhere if it gets published and sold fairly well, and you don't see writers protesting in the streets because they feel ripped off by the libraries, so it is safe to assume that writers in general are comfortable with the idea that libraries loan out their books for free.

>i get and read a shit ton of comics until i find some that i want to own, then i go buy it. This way, i make sure that my money goes to supporting only the best authors, increasing the general quality of the industry

Ohh, so I guess only the writers YOU like deserves to have an income? Okay. Okay, I agree. The best authors are without a doubt the ones that you approve of. How could I be so ignorant? Moron.

Can you guys stop coming up with all these shitty arguments for piracy now and instead see that what you're doing is wrong?

>>1707524
actually, i mean that only authors i like should be getting MY money. i use the internet to find out what i like and then i support what i like. if i don't like it, i don't support it, but that's fine, because they get support from those who do like it.

>>1707524
moralfag is idiot

It may be good for literature.

Most pirates are young kids who want to read Twilight and various mass media shitfests.

Older readers, more serious readers and more intellectual readers don't mind paying for the thing, and mostly will actually like to own the object itself, something to have on the shelf to look good.

Piracy hits mass-appeal media first, worst and hardest. Publishers will focus more on the quality stuff that they know will be pirated less.

It's the same as music - Justin Bieber and Britney Spears are losing millions in sales to piracy, Nick Cave and Tom Waits are hardly affected by it, and record companies follow the money.

Pirates lower the profit margin on lowest common denominator shit, which may eventually mean that this stuff receives less attention, while quality new artists receive more attention because their fanbase is more prepared to support their output.

It may mean the end of the multi-millionaire novelist like John Grisham, but whoever said that musicians and writers deserved to be stratospherically wealthy?

Before I got a Kindle, I bought most of my books used. I still go to specialty bookstores to get nice copies of books I like or unique ones for a friend, just like I'll buy the album if I'm really impressed with music I download. I think it subtly pressures creators to put out work that people are willing to spend money on. Why would I buy a poorly designed paperback that I don't know I'll like at full price?

Also, wah wah. Movies are not getting worse, music is not getting worse, fucking grow up. You think everything around you is shit just because you only pay attention to the highly commercialized stuff. Every decade has had an abundance of that, we just don't remember it because we're a classic-fetishising society. If you can't find good contemporary works, you're not looking for them. You've already made up your mind that they don't exist.

>>1707544

>Movies are not getting worse

It's off-topic, but I actually think they are. I used to go to the cinema once a week, now if I go twice a year, it's been a good year. And I don't download the movies, or watch them on DVD either, because there just aren't any movies I want to see these days.

>>1707566
Maybe you've changed, not the films? I hardly ever watch films anymore but that's because of me.

>>1707566
Maybe you're just getting older.

I used to want to go see a blockbuster every few weeks or so, but now they seem redundant. But they don't seem as redundant to someone younger than me, usually. I mean, now that I've gotten tired of most wide-release ones I kind of have to go out of my way and look along the lines of my interests to find what I like, but reading a lot of books and listening to a lot of music works the same way.

>>1707566
I agree, but basically because the vast majority of stuff that comes out these days are second rate re-makes.

>>1707579
>>1707570

I don't think so. When a truly decent movie is released, I still enjoy it - I saw True Grit a while back and that was just awesome, but for every movie like that you've got a hundred Iron Man/Transformers/Avatar schlockbusters. I'd have liked to see Winter's Bone, but it was on at the cinema for about 2 days, to be replaced with three screens showing the latest Jennifer Aniston shit, which I might take a girl to see on a date, but that's about it.

I never liked blockbuster movies, but there always used to be an alternative. Now, there's James fucking Cameron, or kids movies about fucking lizards, or remakes of remakes or remakes of TV shoes from the eithies, or sequels.

I watched the Expendables on a long flight, and I wanted to poke my eyes out afterwards. WTF is going on?

In literature, there is at least still variety, and I don't think that kindles are going to destroy that - if I had one, I'd still pay for the bok from Amazon, particularly if
I wanted to read it on the day it came out or something.

The only books I would pirate are textbooks. Because they deliberately overprice them and therefore do not deserve to receive money for them.

>>1707580
The majority of films have almost always been shit. If anything, indie films are having a revival at the moment, a lot of new mainstream films out are doing some interesting things narrative-wise. There's also plenty of good indie films out there if you know where to look.

>he thinks pirating is stealing

>>1707539

>It may mean the end of the multi-millionaire novelist like John Grisham, but whoever said that musicians and writers deserved to be stratospherically wealthy?

I do agree that people like John Grisham, Stephen King, Ken Follett, James Patterson, Danielle Steele, Dean Koontz, etc., could do with a little less money. Making ten, twenty, thirty, or even forty million dollars a year is a little too much. And I can agree on that they do not really deserve to be "stratospherically wealthy". However, I think that if your books have sold a couple of hundreds of thousands or even a few millions, that you should be entitled to live an at least somewhat more luxurious life than your plumber neighbor. To say that people who bring much joy and happiness to a lot of other people through their music, films or books, do not deserve to be wealthy, however, I would have to disagree with. To remove financial success from successful people is wrong, because that would not be motivating to anyone.

>>1707629

It is stealing because of what we call "potential buyers". Ever heard of that?

Go be smart somewhere else. Ok? Good boy.

Great films are still being made, you just won't find them at your local multiplex. 2010 had Poetry, Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives, The Illusionist, Meek's Cutoff, Another Year, Mysteries of Lisbon and plenty I've yet to see.

You're conflating "book industry" with "authors".

>>1707310
Don't you guys like to hold the REAL game cartridge in your hands while playing it and then have all your games on a shelf so that you can look at all the games you played? I just don't understand how you guys can think its all fantastic to play on emulators... Piracy or not, emulators remove half the fun of playing games.

Studies on piracy show that the most pirated items are the most popular ones. The top 100 pirated music list corresponds pretty much to the top 100 chart.

There's still plenty of music to go around, lots of albums being produced, bands creating music, music videos, doing gigs, I don't know what the numbers are, but I would wager the number of active bands haven't gone down in the last 10 years even though the volume of piracy has gone up.

There's not much evidence for the whole "Piracy makes music more available so non-chart stuff will become popular!" thing some people as an "excuse" for piracy.

Anecdotally, however, a lot of people I know have pirated music, sure, but they also buy CDs, DVDs, etc. Only very few solely pirate things, and generally the amount they buy depends on their disposable income. If they couldn't pirate things, they wouldn't spend a larger amount of disposable income on books/music.

Take a historical example. What did music fans do before digital music? They had tape recorders and recorded poor quality mix tapes off the radio. Then CDs came and you started getting copied CDs or even mix-CDs. Nowadays the physical medium is gone, but you still have the "illegal" trading of music amongst people who like more music than they can afford.

If anything, piracy allows a large amount of people who wouldn't be able to afford, for an example, music, to enjoy it anyway - and at no cost to the producer because they wouldn't have bought it otherwise.

Anyway, drawing experience from the music industry, the film industry, or any other creative industry, I very much doubt piracy will kill or harm the book industry, especially not considering the decline the book industry has been in since the advent of... TV. Anything that makes people read more should make them happy.

>>1707729
Holy Batman a disjointed post.

My points stand but please disregard the retarded structure.

OP here.

Okay.

You guys have some good points about piracy not being so awfully bad after all. I see things from a brighter perspective now, thank you.

I still thing piracy is morally wrong, but I do agree with some (a few, the rest are plain dumb) of the arguments for piracy.

Conclusion:

/thread

>>1707648

I genuinely believe that (most) writers are not motivated by money. If they were, they wouldn't be writers: the vast majority of people who put pen to paper never expect to make a bean, and those who do, are usually hoping to make a living, not a fortune (I'm thinking of pros like Dash Hammett, Philip Dick, Poe, Chandler etc.)

I don't begrudge JK Rowling being richer than the queen, for reals, but if she misses out on a couple of million through piracy next year then I don't think either she or I will be weeping too hard.

The arguments against piracy seem to me to be commercial enterprises protecting their profit margins, and I don't think that will affect art or literature or anything important one little bit

>>1708200

Yes, and we had already agreed on that, so therefore I concluded /thread. Don't fuck this up now.

/thread