/lit/ - Literature

Books are a real "steal" at the library, where they only cost around $0.25 to $2, but no, I've never stolen a book. That would make me criminal scum, and I'd have to stop right there.

define "stealing"
define "book"

>>3347882
I don't steal books but sometimes I download them... which I guess some publishers would call stealing. But honestly, a vast majority of works in the public domain aren't even available for download right now and I personally find this fact sickening.

>>3347882
I copyright infringe

>>3347896
How does stealing something make you criminal scum?

>>3347907
>>3347904
what makes this any different than walking into a Barns and Nobel and grabbing something?

>>3347911
because I can do it in milliseconds

>>3347909

>>3347911
By stealing a physical item you prevent someone else from actually purchasing it. By downloading it, you don't.

>>3347911
Nobody's depriving Barnes and Nobel of a book without appropriate monetary payment.

It's also a civil matter and not a criminal matter in the enlightened west.

Im a student at NYU and there are always these chill dudes selling second hand books on the streets.

bought Kafka's "The Trial",
Confederacy of Dunces,
Canterbury Tales,
and the Crying of lot 49 all for 15 bucks about 3 days ago.

Plus they have interesting artefacts in them, bookmarks from libraries in Massachussetts, train tickets from Boston.

idk something about buying your own hard copy of a book feels nice.

>>3347882
Why...of course not, officer.

Anyway, I buy books when they are available physically to me. If I have trouble finding them in pulped-tree form, I steal them digitally, because stealing them is substantially easier than the legal means, with all the checkouts and the logging in and the confirming that I've read the terms and conditions...

It's purely convenience-based, for me.

>>3347909

ya man liek dont u know tht ethicis are a social construct and everything is relative??

>>3347882
Seriously guys, I'll buy you books if you're really that hard up for cash. Don't steal. It's not nice.

>>3347932
>I'll buy you books if you're really that hard up for cash.
Wishlist thread?

>>3347882
Will steal anything from a dead author. Always buy novels used (unless they're amazing, but usually if that happens they're dead). ALWAYS purchase poetry legally, that shit needs more support

>>3347930

Really though, it'd be no surprise if we found out that the same people who subscribe to moral relativism or moral nihilism are the ones that do injustice and try to write it off like this >>3347928 .

>>3347942

this makes sense, websites like
http://www.gutenberg.org
http://classics.mit.edu/Browse/index.html
etc etc share texts which now belong to the public domain.

>>3347958
old news...but still good news. pb and other torrents to for all other classics.

>>3347942
Aspiring aspie poet detected. Prose is better than poetry. Poetry is shit and should be left back in the 20th century

>>3347950
>the same people who subscribe to moral relativism or moral nihilism
>implying moral relativism is wrong
>implying that objective moral standards exist, and that some jerkoff on the Internet knows them when philosophical, theological, and legal scholars have been debating broad strokes of morality since long before Jerkoff McGee was born

That's nice, Anon. You keep your stone tablets, and I'll live in the real world, k?

>>3347970
Oh Mighty and Wise One, what, pray tell, is the difference?

>>3347975
yeah and when you get caught stealing, it's gonna feel sooooo real world lolz

I either take them out at a library or buy them. It's rare that I buy them though. It has to be a book that I can't take out at the library and that I want really bad.

>>3347978
The difference is that poetry has much higher levels than prose of suckage.

>pray tell
Im sick now.

>>3347981
little fun fact, petty larceny suit would cost a multimillion dollar corporation more than it would cost to lose the product. It would be illogical to the standards of profits over everything, including morals, to make an example out of somebody.

>>3347981
Right, because Amazon is ruthlessly hunting down people who torrent cheap paperback books.

I'm genuinely terrified of the real-world complications that will arise from loading a stolen .mobi file into the Kindle app.

>>3347990
>Getting sick at "pray tell"
Sorry good sir but you've been voted out of /lit/. Pack your bags, old boy, we're changing the locks on the doors tomomorrow.

>>3347975

Looks like you proved the point. You wouldn't know whether ethical standards exist since you clearly aren't looking for them.

>I steal because it's a convenience thing, for me.
>I am insincere because it's a convenience thing for me.
>I don't improve myself because it's a convenience thing, for me.

And so on. It's a shame that this kind of thinking is what constitutes the "real world". It's become abundantly clear that you're a Yahoo.

>>3347911
Well in response to >>3347904 it would appear as if the books in question are technically within the public domain, and therefore it is legally permissible for any company to reprint the texts.

Even in the case the book wasn't within the public domain, I don't see the point of buying the book used (which is what I do) and then returning it to the market in a couple of days. If I don't plan on keeping the book in my personal library I don't really how it's any different from checking the book out of the university/local library. Who are you truly financing, other than the postal service?

>>3348010
I don't really see how**

>>3347938
When I get paid, definitely a wishlist thread.
but I'm a teacher, man, so don't hold your breath.

>>3348004
>I make up a bunch of shit and pretend that it's what Anon said!

Well, that's not a strawman argument or anything.

It's hilarious to see this kind of slippery slope argument, that downloading a .mobi file is basically the same as opposing personal growth as a concept. Tell me again how the fact that universal standards don't exist means that I can't possibly hold to any personal standards. Tell me again how I can't possibly set goals and aspirations without an objective external force guiding them.

And most of all, go fuck yourself, you self-righteous hypocrite.

>>3348017

Easy now, you're foaming at the mouth.

It is a 'slippery slope', as you put it. Was my first inference correct, that you are a relativist? Yes.

Now, observe my second inference. Your post here >>3347997 further evidences the fact that what motivates you to act justly or unjustly is whether you can be called on for the matter.

My final inference is that when a human is only concerned with acting justly when others are watching, they are clearly missing ethical ideals (personal standards, as you said, of excellence). These ideals are a potentiality. Now, you seem to only be concerned with actuality, or, the 'real world' as you said-- what 'is'. I don't think you've lent much more thought to what 'ought' to be other than the fact that you believe that you 'ought' not be punished for your wrongdoing. So much for you holding to any personal standards. Then the slippery slope- if you steal because it's convenient, it's not unlikely that you'd be a bad friend or fail to cultivate yourself as a result, since they are easier or more immediately gratifying.

I have a theory that people who are drawn to flavors of moral relativism or moral nihilism do not look for the good. You seem to be a shining example. I never claimed to know what you call "universal standards". Swear disgustingly all you like. And it's true that you'll likely not see any legal punishment for your theft. Well then, let me be the punisher, you Yahoo.

>>3348052
Mr. Breivik, I was not informed you had been released from prison. Why don't you cleanse us all of our sins.

>>3348062

I'll roll the dice here and guess that you dropped your silly tripcode to make this comment. It's a shame that you sullied the good name of Celebrate Anon. Perhaps this reinforces my point that you probably want to only appear as a good person, rather than live your ideals. Perhaps not. My only hope is that you'll remember our conversation.

>>3348073
no sir. I am OP and I want you to save me from my life of sin. Cleanse my spirit. take me to the lord... because I... yes I saw the light. After I've wandered so aimless

>>3348052
>Was my first inference correct, that you are a relativist? Yes.

No shit, Sherlock.

>what motivates you to act justly or unjustly is whether you can be called on for the matter

See, here's where you've dropped into beating up men made of straw.

A single flippant remark cannot be reasonably assumed to encompass all of a man's thoughts. If you genuinely believe it can, you're simply an idiot.

>when a human is only concerned with acting justly when others are watching, they are clearly missing ethical ideals (personal standards, as you said, of excellence)

Here is where you are clearly contradicting yourself. I have pretty clearly expressed that I have and advocate personal goals and standards. Because of this, your continued assumption that I am operating under a system wherein such things are absent is clearly flawed. Presumably, you know this, and yet you continue typing under this premise that you, yourself have shown not to work. Why?

>if you steal because it's convenient, it's not unlikely that you'd be a bad friend or fail to cultivate yourself as a result, since they are easier or more immediately gratifying.

Ah, there's where it is. If I take up X position on one issue, I must necessarily take up an identical position on all moral issues. Killing is wrong if you are handed a healthy baby, therefore killing is wrong when confronted with a poisonous spider, or a murderer, or in war, etc. Moral standards must be absolute, despite the fact that I've clearly placed myself in a moral relativist stance. That makes any kind of sense at all, right?

>Swear disgustingly all you like.

I will, thanks. If you can't deal with the word "Fuck" on the Internet, maybe you should finish out the third grade before you try insulting people on 4chan.

You can cry all you like, but the simple fact is that morality is never as simple and absolute as any moral objectivist claims. When you live a little, you'll see that.

>>3347911
The difference is the book was made and is being stolen, so the company is losing money.

Copies scanned onto the net don't have any production costs like the physical book does. It's not preventing someone from purchasing the product.

You can only make assumptions to whether the person downloading the book would have physically bought the book.

>>3348098
There's a graphic out there, somewhere, that shows two scenarios:

>1:
>You steal a CD from the store
>The store now has no CDs, and you have a CD
>The store makes no profit, and loses the ability to ever make profit off of their CD

>2:
>You download a CD
>The store still has that CD, and you have that CD
>The store makes no profit, but still has the original CD, and the ability to make money off of it

Stealing via 5-finger-discount and "stealing" via downloading are not a 1:1 equivalence, and should not be treated as such.

I used to steal a couple of them for every one i bought.

Now amazon fucked that up...

stealing stuff is easy as fuck.

>>3348093

What else am I to do, but judge you based on your actions and words? You aren't telling me about how you are going to give up the silly rationale that it's okay to steal when it's convenient. Moreover, you aren't giving very convincing arguments attesting to your character. Stealing is OK when you are feeling lazy, but it's wrong when..? It seems like stealing out of laziness is the worst of all reasons to steal. You clearly advocate personal goals and standards? The goal or standard we can abstract from your posts is that "it's okay to do things out of laziness" perhaps because "I've clarely placed myself in a moral relativist stance." You give such weak arguments and act on such base principles. And then you think that calling me an "idiot" or "third grader" or someone who hasn't "lived a little" buttresses your argument. You sound like someone who lives rather insincerely. This is tragic.

>>3347882
I steal books. Not from used book stores. Not from mom and pop businesses. They aren't for my "collection" either. After I've read them, I pass them on to a friend or leave them out to be happened upon.

I almost exclusively purchase new books now.

Rather expensive, I know, but having a collection of books is a recent development for me and it's something I've grown to love. Knowing that I regularly have new books coming in the mail has made the endless drudgery that is my life slightly more bearable.

>>3348101

This is such broken logic it's unbelievable. The wrongness comes from the owner of the property not being paid their asking price for use of the property. This violation occurs in the store and the torrent. You can do better than this.

>>3348120
>judge you based on your actions and words
>You give such weak arguments and act on such base principles

Except without the actions. A man is apparently defined entirely by the things he drunkenly writes on 4chan. Who knew?

>You give such weak arguments

Whereas you give *no* arguments. Merely insult and feigned protestations that your honor has been slighted. Oh, to be set upon by such Philistines!

>You sound like someone who lives rather insincerely. This is tragic.

Whereas you sound like somebody who has never given up food in order to keep a roof over your head. Moral absolutes are the playthings of people who have never experienced the harsher realities and come to understand that there is no karmic meter handing out wealth to the worthy.

>>3348130
That's a licensing mindset. If I let a friend listen to my CD, they aren't paying for it, and the artist gets nothing. Therefore, by this logic, my friend has stolen the music.

Your logic is equally broken.

>>3348133
Except without the actions. The whole reason I began this conversation was your action here >>3347928 .

Here are the defenses you've offered:
- It's all relative, man.
- Straw man, slippery slope!!!
- I'm drunk.
- You're a Philistine / jerk off / self-righteous hypocrite / third grader / idiot, therefore fuck off!
- Oh, look at this goody-goody!
- Desperate appeals to moral objectivism, karma, and livin' the hard life

I give no arguments? This is offensive. I have examined your posts closely, employed your themes of 'personal standards', 'the real world', and used your claims as examples multiple times. All you've done is get uppity about people taking you up to task on your actions and words. I'd ask you to reflect on our conversation, but I suppose that closed eyes never see.

>>3348133

It's a licensing mindset? Of course it's a licensing mindset! I suppose you think the artist who produced the CD (the owner of the property I referenced) has no right to ask for money in exchange for their goods. And maybe the same for a software producer, or a farmer, or a craftsman, or any human who produces any product of value. After all, it's all relative, right? What's wrong with lending friends CDs? The same thing that's wrong with lending them answers to a test. That's if you want to get into the nitty-gritty of ethics. But clearly you don't. You are a lout. You ought to take a screenshot of this thread, that you might read it again tomorrow morning. Peace

>>3348149
>I give no arguments? This is offensive. I have examined your posts closely

A dodge, if I've ever heard one. I'm explaining my actions, but if you've got even the barest hint of the philosophical background you're pretending to have, you know that you're the one making the positive claim of there being an objective morality, and that the burden of proof is always on the affirmative.

Until such time as you provide evidence that there's an objective morality, we're just jerking around with my morals. I'm happy to do so, but you've got to quit pretending that you're going to disprove the null hypothesis by proving that a drunk guy's Internet arguments aren't enough to make you rethink the world.

>I suppose that closed eyes never see

Heh.

>Present nothing but criticisms
>Act set upon when people don't accept your worldview, despite you providing no evidence or arguments for it, nor even any kind of hint as to what it is

You could teach Creationists how to obfuscate, son.

>>3348156
>maybe the same for a [...] farmer

I'd love to see your argument for how, if I could magically take a loaf of bread and make a duplicate of it (like, say, copying a file), that feeding this clone!bread to my friend would be the same as stealing the original loaf produced by the farmer.

Yeah, that's totally the same thing.

I remember in 6th grade, my teacher had a great personal collection of books for the class. Apparently, my adolescent love for literature was stronger than my sense of morals because I stole like +10 books from her that year

>pic related

>>3348159
Thought not.

>>3348156
>What's wrong with lending friends CDs? The same thing that's wrong with lending them answers to a test.

So helping people is wrong now....interesting.

>>3348156
>What's wrong with lending friends CDs? The same thing that's wrong with lending them answers to a test.
This makes literally no sense. And I'm using literally correctly, here.
Lending them a CD is purely for entertainment and has just over zero effect on the economy. Giving them answers for a test is rewarding them for their laziness, but still, it's a sign of solidarity.

>>3348341
Whats wrong with rewarding people for their laziness? Its often a sign of intelligence.

>>3348101
So the companies are basically thinking that if the consumers new the product, they wouldn't buy it?

http://de.scribd.com/doc/93891327/Hammond-File-Sharing-Leak

>>3347909
Its a quote from a video game brah

I used to steal books but it was more because I had a "phase". I would literally just walk around in malls and steal as much stuff as I could for the hell of it. What can I say it was a rush and I was 14
I am aware of how edgy I was

>>3348130
Well to be fair he didnt say it wasnt wrong he just said it wasnt the same

>>3348156
>It's a licensing mindset? Of course it's a licensing mindset! I suppose you think the artist who produced the CD (the owner of the property I referenced) has no right to ask for money in exchange for their goods.
Are their goods a CD or certain uses of a CD? In other words, do I own a physical object, or is the physical object still the artist's property and I simply pay for certain things I can do with it? If it's the latter, what responsibilities does the artist have to ensure I am able to do the things promised?

>>3348392
How exactly are bits and bytes goods in the first place?

I'd never steal anything

>>3348398
It depends on what you mean by goods. Almost anything that can be exchanged/received/given can be described as a good, but usually if the thing is intangible it gets called a service. It might make slightly more sense to think of it as a kind of service, but even then it doesn't really make sense.

Every one of my books is stolen. I have well over ten thousand.

They are ebooks.

>>3348404
Well, for a service you rather take the "live" time for a person, not? While with the media you can pirate, the effort of the person happened "long" ago.
As for goods, then words would count as goods too, same with other sounds. Did you just hear my dog barking? Or how I started my car? Well, fuck you, pay me.

I have a hard time seeing, how something that isnt material like a book/cd, should count as goods.

Not to misunderstand, I am not against paying the artists/publishers/whoever the fuck fairy but criminalizing private piracy just sounds like a bad joke with disregards on any logic.

>>3348417
I find it interesting to view them as services, because it reminds you it's a stand in for something which is physically done, like a theatrical or musical performance. However, the media companies I think would like them to be strictly classed as services now, because it's often difficult with digital stuff to show services haven't been rendered and to get your money back, whereas it's much more straightforward with goods. Whether artists or companies like it or not, though, it is a completely new paradigm.

Stealing is bad.
Sure, I could do it, but then God wouldn't allow me into Heaven.

Piracy isn't a crime, it's a great thing and everybody should do it.

If you disagree you're a goddamn retard.

>2013
>not realizing the free market has solved
distribution problems
>not realizing the new problem is payment of creators and should be treated as a new issue

i stole when i was in high school.

now i just conduct copyright infringement over the internet.

>>3348589
seriously, whole lot of non-Kopimists in this thread.

>new perfect distribution system where the market produces and distributes the goods independently at no cost to the producer
>somehow bad
>somehow people are incapable of supporting the artists that they think deserve money


We should return to voluntary payment for art, maybe we'd finally see an end to all this pop-lit bullshit.

>>3348607
most of the books I read and the music i listen to the authors/composers are long dead and gone. I am a college student with very little money why should I pay a company for knowledge and art when it's so easy to take for free. It's a rather victimless crime. I do not give three shits about a multimillion dollar company the same way they do not care about me. Corporations are out to make the most dominate increase of profits for the shareholders not to provide a perfect world for you or I. So, I don't really care about some rich bastard padding his pockets off of a failed economic system.

I have stolen two books from my school. And I have pirated all of Tao Lin's fiction.

But other than that I bought all of my books from a combination of thrift stores and amazon

I pirate every single one of my ebooks, which is my primary way of reading. If I really like it and have money, i'll buy a physical copy.

never stolen a book purposely, but my school library has no security really so i just take books home and put them back without checking them out

I download books because where i live don't have reprinting of some less popular genre.
I'm tired of shitty used books, i'm tired of having to fix used books.
And i have a kindle now, deal with it.

I physically stole some expensive omnibuses and reference books a long time ago. Now I just save up to buy the real thing. Of course, ebooks don't count, since I always pirate digital media whenever possible.

I steal books from a small bookstore (from a big chain of bookstores) near college. They don't have a camera, they are always full and the alarm doesn't work.

And all my dishes are from buffets in vernissages, classy as fuck to have them at home.

>>3348101

But they don't sell it -ever- because everybody downloaded the CD. What really needs to occur is that people need to stop profiting off of music and start profiting off of the concert merch, live performances, etc. HARD GOODS where if you don't want the guy to have it you can reach across the table and say "HAHA... NOPE!". The system has to change. It's never going to go back to what it was, so find a way to evolve.

Also, I am so sick of this discussion. Get on board, music industry, or GTFO. We're moving on without you.

I stole one book from my school library a few years back, but I haven't stolen any since.

It was The Name of the Rose. it is my favourite book.

I stole a good 50 books from my university.

Their scanning machines were broken for most of the semester, so I'd just stuff my backpack with books and walk out every week or so.

Ebooks don't count, I believe, because I see them like digital music and you can't own an idea/collection of bits. So I steal those.

That said, I buy all my physical books. And recently, because I got a raise at my job, I've been able to buy a few more than usual.

I take them from the library. No one reads them anyways. Also they're getting damaged from retarded librarians.

>>3348860
I think I've stolen about 250. Most of them aren't very good though.

If you steal books from a library, you're the worst kind of dickhead.

>>3348884
Haha I disagree with you. I take them from the used section. There are about 4 copies of every book and no one reads anything. I'm at the library a lot, it's true.

>>3348332
>>3348341
>>3348392

Allow me to articulate this analogy a bit more clearly.

It's the first move for music thieves or music "sharers" to say that it's OK to share a CD with a friend. And it is OK, inasmuch as it's a physical CD and you, the owner of the CD, have relinquished your use of it for a period of time so your friend can enjoy it. That's fine.

But the step that the thieves want to take is this: therefore, digital music sharing is just like sharing CDs with friends. Well, it's not. I likened this kind of sharing to sharing answers to an exam-- you get your use out of the answer (probably having worked for it, just like you worked for that ten dollars to purchase the CD), but then all of the cheaters get use out of your answer (without having worked for it). The physicality of that first CD your friend borrowed disallowed this kind of sharing due to its medium. But the amorphousness of a test answer or an mp3 file teems with thieves masquerading their craft as "sharing public property". I say their craft is as they call it, the sae way that sharing answers to an exam is like "sharing public property".

>>3349179

It's funny that Ijust had yesterday a debate with my girlfriend about this copy/stealing thing.
Told her the exact same thing as >>3348101 said.
It may even make more sales as if it wouldnt be downloaded.
There are even studies which has proven that copyright infringement increases the sales.

For example (basic, easy illustration):
There are 1000 people who download a movie/book.
3 Categories.
Buyer || Not buyer || Not sure buyer

Buyers:
100 of them would have bought it without downloading (fanbase)

Not buyers:
200 dont like this shit of piece. they will not buy. (just downloaded because its free, otherwise wouldnt spend 1 cent on anything)

Most complicated one - 'Not sure':
700 people are left. These 700 are people who JUST BUY things they will look into/have the chance to see the things before purchasing.

400 of them are convinced.
300. are not convinced.

Overall, 500 people (50%) will buy this product.
subtract factor c and you'll have just 100.

It may very from many factors (Probability, fact/solid numbers) but you get a basic idea.

>mfw when she still implied its stealing and the industry get financial damage

>ripping the back cover of a library book to throw away the electronic alarm trigger, whilst sitting on a toilet...even the memory of it brings no shame at all

>>3349179
You must be over 30 if you dont equate "borrowing a CD" with ripping a digital copy for yourself. And no one gains enjoyment from borrowing the answer to an exam, or knowing that they have let their friend have the answer. Really such a dumb analogy.

I stole from my schools "reading room". It is a room filled with really great books but it is always locked so no one can really read the books. I stole two of their Library of America hardcovers of William Faulkner and Flannery O' Connor

Has anyone stolen from Barnes and Nobles? I was thinking I could go there, work for a few hours, and steal some books.

It's safer not to leave the house and pirate them instead though.

>>3349441

No, I'm almost twenty.

Yes, the cheater does gain from their craft-- we would hopefully agree that their soul is corrupted by it, but they think it a fine pleasure, despite being base, since they only know base pleasures.

I agree that no one gains enjoyment from sharing the answer to the exam-- why? Because the honest test taker has worked to accumulate the knowledge at hand, and wouldn't think it pleasurable nor just to have someone achieve the same mark having done less.

Consider now the case of duplicating CDs. OK, I am sounding too puritanical in saying that you shouldn't make a mixtape for a close friend- this is benevolent and respectable. But we must be careful not to foolishly overextend that particular instance of kindness and call it "file sharing" like we see on all of the internet thief portals-- torrents, limewires, rippers, whatever. Why? You've paid for your right to treat the CD as property, to play it many times, and so on. The artist and various producers involved with the actualization of the CD are appeased, since they have gotten their share. You should now feel like the hard-working student who is indignant when people want to get the same mark by devious means. Why should you devalue your investment and short-change the artists and producers by sharing the CD on the internet?

>>3349957

Because everyone should be able to listen to music, because the music is good? OK, this is yet another easy appeal from the thief. But we are really quite ungrateful to say to the artist who does not release their recordings for free, "You are happy to have your music shared for all"-- if that were the case, they would not be charging for it in the first place. The artist or software engineer or designer or author or whoever would probably respond, "It's a feat of oratory that you paint thievery in such lovely colors, but this is not for you to decide: I would see your beneficiaries pay for my intellectual property, since I ought to be recompensed for my work, like any other decent laborer." Or should anyone who pursues the arts or humanities do so pro bono? Perhaps we have found our point of disagreement.

>>3349957

A personal rule of thumb-- if you're planning on listening to the song a few times or more, you ought to buy it.

>>3347924
Are you talking about the pop up sales on the sidewalk? Usually a bunch of old black dudes hangin around, selling old books and older porn magazines?
One of the best things about NYC. That and stealing books from the outside racks at Strand.

>stealing
>2012

>>3349957
>honest test taker would feel terrible to give answers

Really? I was the "honest test taker" in middle and high school, and happily gave my answers out all the time. I hated seeing people fail, especially if it was something easy, and I enjoy helping people. Giving answers didn't bother me at all.

>>3349957
>Why should you devalue your investment

because it's not a share on microsoft, it's a cultural product.

>>3347924
Nice, I love finding little artefacts in my library books. I've found a Polish train ticket, a store receipt from Hong Kong, a Cirque du Soleil ticket from Montreal...very cool.

I stole "steal this book"

I've only ever filched books from my library's annual extravagantly-overpriced book sale.

I stole a book from Borders but that was during their going-out-of-business bonanza, no one cared.

I pirate ebooks

The only book I've stolen was Perks of Being a Wallflower, and that was for a gf

>>3347958
My high school math teacher did tons of work for gutenberg.