Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> You may think your work is super unique/original/awesome, but the reality is 99% of the content of 99% of books is not unique or original, and those works wouldn't exist without massively relying on and borrowing from other works.

Cool so you won't miss it when libgen is gone then? I mean if there's nothing unique or original there then what's to miss right?

> Books existed long before publishers and copyright, and seem to have survived quite well.

I don't know how else to measure the health of books other than measuring the health of publishing, and it doesn't seem like it's doing so great:

https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/p...

I'm not saying the publishing industry is sane or just, but how does belittling the work of the authors help anything?



> Cool so you won't miss it when libgen is gone then?

I personally won't, because I've never used it. I am 100% against it being shut down though.

> I mean if there's nothing unique or original there then what's to miss right?

Read my comment again and find the spot where I said 'nothing'.

> I don't know how else to measure the health of books other than measuring the health of publishing

You can start by defining what 'health of books' even means, but your conclusion here seems seriously perverse.

> how does belittling the work of the authors help anything?

What is belittling about acknowledging the fact that current works (especially technical/non-fiction) heavily draw from previous works? The last few technical books I read literally had zero original/unique information - they were just re-organization/re-phrasing/compilation of other works. That's not a bad thing - I think it's great, and the books are great, but is that justification for restricting access to this information - when it is literally 100% based on other works?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: