[billsix]

> Given the choice between stealing knowledge and not stealing knowledge, when you wouldn't have paid for it anyway, where's the harm?

As a working adult, time spent reading a book is both more limited and more valuable than $40. If you wouldn't have bought it anyways, why is it worth your time stealing and reading it?

Although it was an unpopular opinion at the time, I agree with Metallica's outspoken moral opposition to Napster circa 2000.

[xevb3k]

The arguments you make could equally well be applied to libraries.

Libraries “steal” money from authors by making books more freely available, in largely the same way that piracy does.

They also make books available to people who otherwise couldn’t afford them.

[billsix]

Reductio ad absurdum.

[xevb3k]

“If you wouldn't have bought it anyways, why is it worth your time stealing and reading it?”

This is literally the same thing as getting a book from a library. The exact same argument applies.

Throwing Latin around doesn’t progress a discussion.

[billsix]

Pirate away bro, it’s just like a library, you’re correct. The word “library” is derived from the Latin word “liber”, meaning book.

[xevb3k]

You repeatedly call me “dude” and “bro”. You assume many people can afford a $40 book.

To me you pretty much typify what’s wrong with modern tech culture, a total lack of empathy or understanding that there is a world outside of that which you live.