[sriram_malhar]

As an author of a book on which I worked incredibly hard, FUCK you. If you want it so bad, buy it. Or wait a few years, buy it used. Or borrow it from a library. Don't fucking steal it.

Carpenters and other craftspeople who earn far less than the denizens of Hacker News buy whatever they need to further their business. They don't steal others' tools.

[sillysaurus3]

I'd be happy to debate, if you're interested. But in the meantime it appears that the anger is misplaced; direct it at the fact that we have this wonderful tool that destroys class barriers and makes knowledge free to all.

You act as if I have $40. Would it surprise you to learn my power was cut off within the last few months?

Another point: "Stealing" implies something was lost. The words are still there, even if I have copied them.

The game industry and the iPhone app store have proven that when you price something closer to $1, it will generate exponentially more revenue than $40.

[sriram_malhar]

My anger isn't misdirected. It is directed exactly at this sentiment of yours: "The words are still there". It is the same whether I came up with a new magic trick, or a song, or a film. Don't fucking steal it because you have this wonderful tool called "copy" that "destroys class barriers". There is plenty of stuff on the internet (mine included) that people have chosen to put up for free; go use those. Or wait 10 years. The words will still be there, and you can get it much cheaper.

There was a lot of energy put behind those words, and I expect to get paid a modest sum for it. The means of knowledge transmission aren't free, just as you discovered that while a river wants to be free, the mechanism of converting it to useful energy and transmitting it to you isn't free.

[sillysaurus3]

People put a lot of energy into programming languages, but they don't expect to get paid anything for it. Why is it different when it comes to publishing a book?

That may sound like a dismissive question, but it's at the crux of our disagreement. If we can resolve that, we might be able to see eye to eye.

[sriram_malhar]

I'd hazard that a very large fraction of people who work on open PLs and open operating systems get paid --and expect to get paid -- for the effort they put into that project; take Golang, Rust, Linux, Kotlin, Java/JVM, Scala, Haskell, OCaml, Swift and so on. These are not written by homeless people. Try telling Rob Pike that he's not going to get paid for the ten years he spent on Go, and that he would only get paid for his other contributions to Google.

Further, it is an author's prerogative (whether that author is a company or an individual) to set the terms of the pricing. As a consumer you can choose to accept it and pay the price, or come up with an alternative model (like iTunes or the App Store) that changes the market.

I resent it intensely that after putting my own money and time and effort into a project (took a full year off a job), somebody just pirates it so easily. And then attempts to claim moral high ground with weasel phrases like "knowledge wants to be free" and "class barriers".

[sillysaurus3]

If I understand your position correctly, you feel that even if someone does not have $40 or would not have paid $40 for something that can be freely copied, it is both immoral and unethical to ignore the author's wishes and copy it anyway. Even though you as the author are unaffected by this action. You also feel that it's justifiable to seek out people who do this and tell them that they should not do this, i.e. how to live their life.

Is that an accurate summary? I am trying to respond to the strongest possible interpretation of what you're saying.

What is the difference between someone doing this, which is an illegal victimless crime, and recreational drug use, which is also an illegal victimless crime? Why is one immoral and unethical, but not the other? Furthermore, why is it justifiable to believe that it's an important right to be able to ingest whatever you want into your body as long as you're not harming anyone else? And are you sure the same argument doesn't apply to this case?

[sriram_malhar]

How is this victimless?

I write a book, put it out on the market. Someone copies it and puts it up on a website (crime alert). Someone like you publicises it. I don't get paid because from your point of view, it is out there free for the taking. Meanwhile, I have lost hundreds or thousands of potential sales from people who may have paid, but have now been tempted to join your illegal caper. Everyone revels in the very public theft.

Which is why I seek out comments like yours that glorify piracy and tell them to bugger out of _my_ life. They are most welcome to their lives as long as they don't adversely affect mine.

[grzm]

> "People put a lot of energy into programming languages, but they don't expect to get paid anything for it. Why is it different when it comes to publishing a book?"

The difference is what the people who choose to do the work expect to get out of it. There are people who work on programming languages (or software) that have commercial licenses. That's their choice. Choosing to ignore their choice, to subvert the terms on which they choose to offer the fruits of their labor, is wrong.

If you can convince them to offer their work under other terms, great. Until then, respect the terms the authors (of books, languages, and software) have chosen.

[djur]

> The game industry and the iPhone app store have proven that when you price something closer to $1, it will generate exponentially more revenue than $40.

This may be true for mass-market, high-volume products like mobile games, (although even there the real money is in in-app purchases). It is not necessarily true for special-interest, low-volume products like this book. In order for it to be true, you need to assume that over 40 times as many people will buy the book at $1 as will buy it at $40. Frankly, the audience for this book is so narrow that I suspect that they would eventually get three times as many free downloads as they will get sales at $40.

[vnorilo]

Ok, so digital scarcity is engineered, not real, because scarcity makes our economic system work. However, I don't think anyone has come up with a viable post-scarcity model. In some cases like mobile apps and steam sales, big discounts can increase volume to the point where the economic equation works. Sadly, I don't think a book on dependent types is really amenable to that scenario.

[billsix]

> Would it surprise you to learn my power was cut off

Passive verbs are weak (Mistakes were made, versus I made a mistake). You failed to pay your electric bill.