I get it now. I was kind if skipping some context. I was saying under legal means sharing books is fine and good(not paying for it). e.g. going to a library. But you can certainly copy books and distribute them. I posit that it’s nearly always ethical to do so. Whether or not it’s legal is a different question and depends on the material in question.
Yes?
Did i say something anti-library or am i reading into this wrong?
Beyond missing the subtext…
I don’t actually read all that much. I’m excruciatingly slow and i don’t currently commute. Most of my reading was on public transit or camping. But the authors i like just happen to either be ok with sharing copies of their work or it’s available for free anyways. That said I’ve bought maybe twenty books in the last decade…
Textbooks from exploitative publishers especially i refuse to pay for. E.g. Wiley, pearson, McGraw-Hill, etc… As well technical publications and journals.
The great Gatsby was provided by school when i read it. All the books were in my k-12. Most the students couldn’t afford them.
The only books I’ve paid for are the ones where the author explicitly allows copy and free distribution.
Well, those and the ones that get bundled with online access way back in uni.
The other benefit is there’s no fun and games on the windows boot so i can’t get distracted from work. If it was just a quick shortcut away I’d get nothing done.
Separate hard drives fixes this one.
The snopes article doesn’t say it’s outright false, just that it’s not based on available evidence. So stating it as fact rather than rumor is misinformation.
The Vatican has failed to deny it for over 20 years of inquiry. The impact of this claim is benign compared to pretty much anything else the church has factually done.
it’s funny and harmless, meme on.
The technical complexity of showing a chronological feed of posts from subscribed accounts? Are you asking for one to scoff at thou peasant? You might as well request a toaster without bluetooth BAHAHAHA! BEGONE!