[coliveira]

There is no nuance there, these people had a personal choice of publishing their books through a traditional publisher and decided for that. It is just a tradeoff that you need to honor. Maybe next time they will just self-publish and have a book that is truly free without the need of pirating.

[Al-Khwarizmi]

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.

[coliveira]

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.

[alextgordon]

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.

[krapp]

>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...

[coliveira]

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.

[amatic]

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

[coliveira]

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.