I’m ok with library Sci-Hub, but less so with Library Genesis. Pirating books reduces the incentives for authors to write more books. Pirating academic articles won’t reduce academics’ incentives to write papers.
Considering certain technical books range between 70 to 300 dollars per copy, and libraries are unable to afford them, it seems to me that the incentive system is already broken.
The publishers are very comfortable with the high prices they are able to charge the quite expensive American universities.
In some academic fields, books are also just collections of technical papers on some topic, or one really long paper, which is probably not something to earn money from. I assume most are sold to libraries, similar to journals. Though Library Genesis also contains other, more commercial books.
Good. There no reason to rewrite undergrad calculus books every semester besides money grabbing. The math hasn't changed in 100 years and there shouldn't be an incentive to write an updated version of the book for the 50th time.
The language changes, but more importantly students backgrounds and facility with the English language changes. Not that dumbing down the text or replacing old timey words should cost much, but cost disease and all that.
Granted, but they definitely do not change enough to warrant a new edition every year. This can and has been experimentally confirmed by countless students even before Library Genesis simply by showing up to class with an old edition of the textbook and still learning the material fine.
Does it? It seems complicated. Higher availability of books means more readers for a start. Large numbers of people don't read at all and therefore aren't even in the market for books. Then you have to consider the absurd length of copyright. How does an author receiving money for something they wrote 50 years ago incentivise them to write more? Even worse, how does a dead author's estate receiving money incentivise anyone to write anything?
>How does an author receiving money for something they wrote 50 years ago incentivise them to write more?
Receiving money for something you wrote 1 week ago doesn't encourage you to write more. It's the knowledge that you will receive money for next thing you wrote that incentivizes you to write more. And a 50 year payout should obviously provide more incentive than a 6 month payout.
There's going to be a point of diminishing return where adding extra years doesn't provide enough extra incentive to justify the cost, but I haven't seen any convincing evidence that 50 years is over that threshold.
The same holds true for copyright extending past the author's lifetime. Especially if an author is older, the knowledge that their children will benefit is certainly an incentive.
I don't get this argument for writing or anything else. I do things now for which I don't expect to get paid for the next 50 years. What's my incentive?
The libraries where I live are seriously a joke anyway, and even if they were not, I doubt they could compete with a website where you can find monographs addressed to like 100 people, in seconds, in your pyjamas.
Back in the day, when MIT still owned 18.0.0.0/8, at least one journal gave blanket access to users coming from anywhere in that netblock. And there were ways to use it even if you weren’t officially affiliated as a student/faculty. Unfortunately Aaron Swartz did not use an untraceable method of access.
That's honestly quite tragic as we don't evolve anywhere fast enough to not be hit by global depression as the digital solitude clashes with the innate human needs of real socialization.
> Twenty-five percent who went to the library learned about political or cultural organizations or leisure activities taking place in the local community. More than 20% went to the library with friends or colleagues to work together on a common assignment or a leisure activity. Seventeen percent used the Internet at the library to contact friends via e-mail, to chat, or to participate in discussion groups, etc. Sixteen percent used the library to learn more about local matters, social or political issues, etc., that they are involved in. Fourteen percent participated in organized meetings, such as author's nights, lectures, meetings with politicians, etc. Ten percent used the library as a place to meet family or friends before going together to the movies, into the city, to do shopping, etc. (p.19)
Libraries are not archives of books. They are community hubs. My local library has programs for seniors with early mental impairments to do puzzles with volunteers to slow the progression of their decline. Another has programs for street youth.
Where on Earth did you get that idea? Every library I've ever been to has offered all kinds of events geared to "socializing," from Group Crochet, to Book discussions, to AA. Not to mention how common it is for libraries to offer "teen spaces" where kids are free to hang out, work on homework together, etc.
I am not kidding at all. We have that government library app sort of thing. It makes you wait for a digital copy. Like there's a line of people before you, just like in an old school library.
Not all of us are able to, or want to, use ebooks. Especially textbooks where one may be going back and forth through chapters fairly frequently. Simply saying "muh Libgen" ignores how most people , especially teenagers, study. For teenagers, any smart device will lead to distraction if connected online. They usually choose Insta over the PDF reader in their distraction.