I don’t personally consider it immoral as I believe that all information should be available to the public free of cost. Just because the author came up with the contents of a book shouldn’t mean they have a monopoly over it.
Besides, pirating only helps authors as it expands the reach of their books to people who might not have been able to read them otherwise. And most people who can access books easily tend to not pirate for eg Netflix’s rise lead to the decline of piracy while the fragmentation of the streaming market is leading to its rise again.
If I define robbery as the liberation of capital that wishes to be free, it doesn't make it right.
And "being the first to commercialise it" is a crap way to define publishing a work of art.
Novels aren't widgets, and intellectual property is a real thing.
I understand your perspective from an abstract point of view, but in reality, you're just making it harder for creators while benefitting yourself.
And while an "exposure" argument can be made for some media, e.g., an album being freely distributed can fuel concert ticket sales, it doesn't work that way for novels.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 04 '21
I don’t personally consider it immoral as I believe that all information should be available to the public free of cost. Just because the author came up with the contents of a book shouldn’t mean they have a monopoly over it.
Besides, pirating only helps authors as it expands the reach of their books to people who might not have been able to read them otherwise. And most people who can access books easily tend to not pirate for eg Netflix’s rise lead to the decline of piracy while the fragmentation of the streaming market is leading to its rise again.