[plandis]

> since you are only denying the person one very specific use of their "property"

You’re denying the author income in exchange for their labor of writing the book in the first place.

> Of course, if it starts materially affecting the person's capacity to live a reasonable lifestyle

Well at least according to this: https://authorsguild.org/news/six-takeaways-from-the-authors...

> Inability to earn adequate living: indeed just 57% of full-time published authors derived 100% of their individual income from writing-related work in 2017, and much of that writing income comes from activities such as speaking engagements, the teaching of writing, editing or translating the works of other authors, ghostwriting, etc. rather from book advances and royalties. Only 21% of full-time published authors derived 100% of their individual income from book-related income.

In terms of income:

> Median incomes of all published authors who were surveyed—including part-time, full-time, traditionally published, self-published, and hybrid-published authors—for all writing-related activities[1] was $6,080, down 3% from four years ago. This is down from a $10,500 median income in 2009 according the Authors Guild’s last survey[2]. Worse still, the median income for all published authors based solely on book-related activities[3] fell from $3,900 to $3,100, down 21%, while full-time traditionally published authors earned $12,400.

So effectively, not paying for a book has a high likelihood of taking a decent percentage of a writers income.

[sgc]

Like I said, make an educated decision. However, the largest reason that authors make so little is that the publishing houses overwhelmingly give them next to nothing. So no, downloads are not the problem. Anecdotally, I have never had an author not send me a digital copy of a book I requested from them (generally because they were hard to get). At the same time, it is pretty obvious which authors are smaller and would thus fall into the category of "people to look out for" I indicated in my first post. And again, I am not here advocating for downloading, simply pointing out that it is quite different than strict theft (which is pretty obvious), and those who claim otherwise, by using a simplistic argument, lose a large part of their audience immediately.