Free dissemination of knowledge that benefits the advancement of mankind should never be illegal. In fact, Z-Library being illegal is immoral. That being said, I simply use Z-Library to inspect books before purchasing them. Translations from different authors are often remarkably different. Sometimes books have horrible layout. So yeah, Z-Library has been indispensable to avoid wasting money. Case in point, part of the first paragraph of Dostoevsky’s House of the Dead, the Dover versus Penguin edition
If z library only contained actual knowledge sure, but it seems to be primarily fiction. But no it’s immoral because the author likes to save money and not go to a physical store.
I like piracy too but saying that banning piracy is immoral and comparing it to apartheid, slavery and ccolonialism is just ridiculous.
“I like piracy too but saying that banning piracy is immortal and comparing it to apartheid, slavery and ccolonialism is just ridiculous.”
When one puts it like that it sure does seem ridiculous, but to me it is obvious that the analogy I am making is purely the fact that something being illegal does not mean it’s immoral.
“I really don’t understand why people think they have a moral right to other people’s creations.”
That’s a straw man fallacy. That statement removes all the always important context you just alluded to, a statement which was never claimed.
I like that you brought it up though, the original remark, a bit sardonic but that’s okay. It keeps me aware of my own potential generalizations, assumptions, fallacies, and whatnot.
“I really don’t understand why people think they have a moral right to other people’s creations.”
That’s a straw man fallacy. That statement removes all the always important context you just alluded to, a statement which was never claimed.
In the articles this is being claimed:
Free dissemination of knowledge that benefits the advancement of mankind should never be illegal. In fact, Z-Library being illegal is immoral.
You say that it’s immoral that Z-Library is illegal. The purpose of Z-Library is arguably to provide people with copyrighted content for free. I.E Other people’s creations.
Please tell me what important context I’m missing. To me it honestly just seems like you want someone else’s stuff for free and are just brining up morally in a misguided way to achieve that.
Wanting free shit is great, I support that. Pirate all you want. But it isn’t about morality.
P.S. isn’t bringing up the straw man fallacy a straw man fallacy itself? Some people have started to say that every argument they disagree with is essentially a straw man fallacy.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
just go to https://z-lib.gs/ . idk wdym by “why”…
Officer trying to be under cover
Did you maybe miss the linked article? :D
was there an article linked at first?
weird, i don’t think there was one when i was writing from my phone lol.
!zlibrary@lemmy.ml
You have all the official addresses, I recommend using the Tor network
Lol
If z library only contained actual knowledge sure, but it seems to be primarily fiction. But no it’s immoral because the author likes to save money and not go to a physical store.
I like piracy too but saying that banning piracy is immoral and comparing it to apartheid, slavery and ccolonialism is just ridiculous.
When one puts it like that it sure does seem ridiculous, but to me it is obvious that the analogy I am making is purely the fact that something being illegal does not mean it’s immoral.
That’s true but in the context it puts a very bad taste in my mouth.
I really don’t understand why people think they have a moral right to other people’s creations.
That’s a straw man fallacy. That statement removes all the always important context you just alluded to, a statement which was never claimed.
I like that you brought it up though, the original remark, a bit sardonic but that’s okay. It keeps me aware of my own potential generalizations, assumptions, fallacies, and whatnot.
In the articles this is being claimed:
You say that it’s immoral that Z-Library is illegal. The purpose of Z-Library is arguably to provide people with copyrighted content for free. I.E Other people’s creations.
Please tell me what important context I’m missing. To me it honestly just seems like you want someone else’s stuff for free and are just brining up morally in a misguided way to achieve that. Wanting free shit is great, I support that. Pirate all you want. But it isn’t about morality.
P.S. isn’t bringing up the straw man fallacy a straw man fallacy itself? Some people have started to say that every argument they disagree with is essentially a straw man fallacy.
The article clearly mentions my use of Z-Library is to inspect before I buy. Now, because of being misrepresented twice, the discussion ends here.
I have already addressed that in my original comment.
Go to a store.
Just because you wanted to inspect people’s creations in a way that suites you better doesn’t make banning piracy fundamentally immoral.
Sounds great. It’s honestly no use arguing with idiots.