Imagine the person who cannot afford a book or paper on a particular topic. Should they not have access to the information?
I agree, as always there is nuance, but zlib et al fulfill a need for certain people. In b4 public libraries, they aren't equal around the world, depend on geographic proximity and add latency to the learning process.
The key question is, what proportion of zlibrary users would have purchased the books legitimately if piracy didn't exist, or would have been able to afford it? Anecdotally I suspect most pirates have little income for books but I can't find data on this.
The error in this argument is assuming that the price of a good must equal its marginal cost. Software, for example, also has a marginal cost of zero -- it can be reproduced with the same technology as electronic text, and yet developing software is expensive, so the price of each copy is set above the marginal cost so that the developer gets paid. By denying the developer the right to set a price for their work, you are in effect forcing them to work for someone else for free. It does not matter what the marginal cost is.
Now there's a lot of open source software, and a lot of open access publications and free books out there, as well as systems in place -- we call them "libraries" -- by which taxpayers purchase works on behalf of the public and make them available in limited quantities for no charge. And here I need to reiterate the bane of badly construed interventions is trying to control prices rather than adjusting incomes. Stop messing with prices. The way we help the poor is with income support, not by creating a parallel price system for the poor.
I don’t think anyone should work for free, I don’t know what the right answer is. It’s a shame when someone doesn’t get paid for their work due to piracy, but also a shame if someone can’t access an important work to them that is free to deliver but they just can’t afford (like a student/researcher, etc). Ideally digital works should be free and donation supported, where people voluntarily contribute what they feel the work is worth, limited by what they can afford. But I won’t delude myself into thinking something like that would actually work.
You're not - they can just not do the work. You can argue that a business model is being destroyed; you can't argue that anyone is "forced to work for free" by piracy, because they're not forced to work in the first place.
“Imagine a completely different question! Check mate!”
GP asked a simple yes or no question: Do you think knowledge should be denied to people that can’t afford it?
Your answer is “yes.” I don’t see the added value of trying feeble linguistic jiu jitsu to justify your position that yes, society should deny knowledge to those who can’t afford it.
I agree, as always there is nuance, but zlib et al fulfill a need for certain people. In b4 public libraries, they aren't equal around the world, depend on geographic proximity and add latency to the learning process.