[jstarfish]

Just do the right thing. Put yourself in the other party's shoes and consider how you'd feel about approaching this from their side.

Textbook publishers aren't improving their offerings with each iteration. They re-release the same shit with a different cover and charge schools (and taxpayers) a premium for this "service." In some cases, the content they republish was already paid for with taxpayer money. Their business model is exploitative on every level. Fuck them.

A fiction author puts effort into a work of art. They're not forcing sales or doing anything shady; they're just someone trying to make a living selling copies of their art. Respect that and don't play games with them, unless they can't be civil.

[refurb]

This is ridiculous take.

Textbooks aren't publishing what "was already paid for with taxpayer money". By that same logic if I write a book that summarizes all the scientific research in a certain area, then I don't deserve copyright. That makes no sense.

Writing a textbook is no different than writing a piece of fiction. It takes actual work to do, and it's original content.

And if you don't want to buy the latest edition for your class blame the professor. Most of them are too lazy to actually use older editions and save student hundreds of dollars.

[nostril]

This is an excellent point. Thanks. Do you mind if I quote your comment in our official policies?

It's interesting because libgen also provides most fiction titles, but everyone is rooting for them.

For example, one of the books they want taken offline is from 1954, republished in 2008. So in this case they operate closer to the textbook model than the author model.

[jstarfish]

Thanks; go for it :)

I can't speak to libgen's current fiction policy. Just be cognizant of the human element.

Your last point is good; I meant to add something about dead authors too. Fuck estates for that very reason. Lazy-ass kids should write their own damn novel.