Who else is going to buy this motherfucker?

HYPE
Y
P
E

Even though I think that Myhrvold's tone in writing is douchey, I love owning MC and keep it in my reference rotation. I will buy the bread

>Why buy when you can steal?

I don't know, I'll leave you low-lives to ponder that one.

As much as I prefer reading on a screen now, the only copies I've found online of the original books are really shitty PDF scans where someone half-assed laying the book on a photocopier at random angles and low resolution, sometimes with the book turned sideways to get two physical pages into one page-scan.

Amazon doesn't list an ebook version, so I don't think there is one.

I'd consider scanning it myself if I could find a library that has it. However, I'd probably have to sell the scanner immediately afterward, because all color scanners put an identifying constellation of yellow dots into the images with the serial number of the scanner. I don't particularly want a $150,000 lawsuit judgment against me for willful copyright infringement involving redistribution.

Yeah I think ill buy a new pc if im going 700 dollar range.

It's not stealing if the original is still there.

Use the library's scanner or just get one second hand, people are constantly throwing out old scanners this is not a real concern.

>2017
>for some reason there are people are freaking out about the newfangled "modernist cuisine"
What's going on in this thread?

>copy an entire five-volume set of books on library scanner
>nearly 2000 pages

Yeah, I'm sure the librarians will be happy to let me.

i have never made bread before, what is a good beginner bread that i won't screw up?

I recommend the beginner bread from "Beard on Bread". It's a very good book. Alternately, Tassajara Bread Book.

Or go with this one; it's very good:

lysator.liu.se/etexts/recept/us/altar-bread.html

Even if they could find the yellow dots (do it in black and white, increase the contrast, save it as a jpg, use ocr to just turn it into text, etc.) there's nothing connecting the scanner serial number to you, and they're not going to even bother trying, you're not plotting a terrorist attack and I've never heard any proof that the whole serial number thing actually exists anyway.

Except it's Nathan M being pirated, a man who literally invented suing people over IP ''''disputes'''' as a business model, and made billions off having the time to pore over obscure technical materials and convert his findings into profitable litigation

If this was Alton Brown or someone like that, you might have a point but if there is anyone on the internet who you do NOT want to pick a piracy fight with, it's Nathan M

I'm certainly going to buy it. I bought the original MC and it was worth every penny and then some.

Pay for the scanner with cash and keep it.

All they'll know is where you bought it; no information connecting it to your name, etc.

>land of the free

Hmmmm

625 bucks to get fat, no thanks

Get fat ??

650 dollar to get answers for all the questions you have, and bake all the best breads in the world

bread is full of carbs that just get converted into sugar, I don't pay much attention to it, let alone spending 650 bucks on some book on it

If I might interject for a moment, what you are referring to as "piracy" is in fact "copying"
Publishers often refer to copying they don't approve of as “piracy.” In this way, they imply that it is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on them. Based on such propaganda, they have procured laws in most of the world to forbid copying in most (or sometimes all) circumstances. (They are still pressuring to make these prohibitions more complete.)

If you don't believe that copying not approved by the publisher is just like kidnapping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word “piracy” to describe it. Neutral terms such as “unauthorized copying” (or “prohibited copying” for the situation where it is illegal) are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as “sharing information with your neighbor.”

District Court Judge Kathleen Williams, presiding over a trial for copyright infringement, recognized that “piracy” and “theft” are smear words.

Is this a /g/ copypasta?

>He still buys food in 2017
LMAOing@ur life
Do you not have five fingers? If you can't sneak a decent rack of ribs out the market there's no helping you.

Pasta from Stallman's 'terms to avoid'

Not kneading your dough with a pacojet before you sous vide it and then put it in a cavitation bath before you cryofry it for that crust

It's Modernist Bread, retard.

>Alright, we spent millions of dollars and years of work to create this set of books. If you want the set, it'll be $550.
>heh, well, why would I pay for it when I can just take it? i'm taking it.
>Because... we're selling a product? It's not free. It's not yours to take.
>it IS free, it IS mine, and i'm taking it. and don't you FUCKING DARE call this stealing. got that?

You're delusional.

No one's taking it.
It's still there, unstolen.

Someone had to buy it to copy it in the first place, which is why they were reluctant to cut it apart and scan it properly.

The SALE isn't there, mong.

You can't steal something that never happened and never would have anyway.
Is everyone who so much as glances at an advertisement a thief? How dare they know your product exists and not buy it!?

You are reducing the argument to metaphysics. Your whole spiel seems to turn on the idea that as soon as something is represented digitally instead of physically, it can no longer be stolen, since it can be reproduced digitally while the "original" sits there. This is incorrect on an everyday understanding of ownership and wrong in the eyes of the creator of the ***product*** who ***has a retail price***. It gets at a bigger question of intellectual property. So then naturally the argument moves to "can you steal an idea?" or "can you steal pixels?" or whatever. Meanwhile, the creator of the product is sitting in the dust going "who gives a fuck, there are people who own my product in its entirety who have not paid for it, this is wrong".

>You can't steal something that never happened and never would have anyway.

This is a nonsensical statement.

>Is everyone who so much as glances at an advertisement a thief?

No, that is the purpose of advertisement: to make people aware of a product. If you take that product without paying for it, however, you are a thief.

None of this is really that complicated until pro-piracy people conflate the issue with metaphysics and abstract arguments.

to be fair he's breaking the law by scanning something to intentionally share it online

If I might interject for a moment, what you are referring to as "piracy" is in fact "copying" or as I prefer to call it, "sharing"
Publishers often refer to copying they don't approve of as “piracy.” In this way, they imply that it is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on them. Based on such propaganda, they have procured laws in most of the world to forbid copying in most (or sometimes all) circumstances. (They are still pressuring to make these prohibitions more complete.)

If you don't believe that copying not approved by the publisher is just like kidnapping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word “piracy” to describe it. Neutral terms such as “unauthorized copying” (or “prohibited copying” for the situation where it is illegal) are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as “sharing information with your neighbor.”

District Court Judge Kathleen Williams, presiding over a trial for copyright infringement, recognized that “piracy” and “theft” are smear words.

kek

>Why buy when you can steal?
>steal

You deffo used the wrong word there, famalam.

I definitely did not. For all intents and purposes, what you are talking about doing is stealing this book. You can call it whatever you want and pretend to win, but it's not a semantic argument in the first place.

you realize the people who pirate stuff would have never bought it in the first place right? therefor they don't really lose money

>semantic
Why do you fuckers always have to bring the Jews into it?
I blame /pol/.

Fuck that jerk

>For all intents and purposes, what you are talking about doing is stealing this book

I assure you the book in question is 100% unburgled.

Is a pedestrian a thief for stealing potential fares from a taxi?
Is a taxi driver a thief for stealing potential sales from a car dealership?
Where do you draw the line?

Somebody who rides in a taxi but who doesn't pay is a thief.
A taxi-driver is a thief if he doesn't make the payment on his car to the dealership.

See, in the adult world, there are these things called contracts and laws that dictate right and wrong use of somebody's property, be it physical or intellectual.

>I assure you the book in question is 100% unburgled.

...again, only in your magical, metaphysical world of wishful thinking.

Kelly-Anne, stop side-stepping the question.
Your argument hinges on the nebulous concept of a "potential sale" and here you are ignoring "potential taxi fares" and "potential car purchases" because it doesn't suit your worldview.

Sharing isn't theft and no amount of tautalogical gymnastics will change that.

>I don't know how business works: the post

It is not a matter of potentiality. There is nothing nebulous here. It is the fact that in actuality people are stealing the book/making unauthorized use of it/"""sharing"""" it. This is wrong in the eyes of the person who produced the book, the person whom of which the book is intellectual property.

I know it's this Robin Hood situation in your mind, but it really is a basic moral wrong in that you are deliberately, consciously taking something or making use of something for free that somebody has produced and explicitly asked money for. You may choose not to call it "theft", but I don't think that constitutes a reconciliation with the producer-- maybe you do?

I understand that in the broader scheme, you probably do not believe that there is such a thing as intellectual property or that it ought to be defended by the law.

>tautalogical gymnastics

I want to see you explain how I'm using tautologies.

It's not quite that simple though. I work for a company that develops specialized software for a certain industry. It's got DRM up the ass just in case, but our market segment is pretty niched out. If someone wants our stuff, they also want our expertise. In the absence of DRM, if they were going to pirate it, they either (a) have the technical and business analysis skills to not need us to begin with, or more likely (b) are stupid, and are going to fail to get any value out of their attempted piracy.

In this example, we're talking about essentially soft core coffee table porn for foodies. Is it useful? No doubt it is. Does it contain ground breaking information that would make it into something like theft of trade secrets? Highly unlikely. Is a NEET who downloads scans to read on his facebook machine a likely potential customer? Is my ability to download the scans going to change my decision to buy it? Highly unlikely.

If someone is literally reprinting these in China and selling them on ali baba for 1/3 the price, you might have a better argument, but an electronic download of a shitty awkward scan of a book that's supposed to be a tabletop conversation piece isn't really the same as downloading a blue ray movie instead of renting the DRM'd version from some licensed streaming service.

This is Burgerland, we're talking about here.
The city of Chicago gets penalized when street cleaning activities interfere with the rent collection of the dickheads they sold their parking meters to. When private prisons don't receive enough inmates, that is also theft. There is literally nothing you can do in Burgerland that is not "stealing" from some asshole or other.

Obsessed.

>your case
>the case of MC

I get that these are niche products, and I even agree with the general mood of what you're saying, but it still doesn't make it OK to steal them.

As a Burger myseld, I have reason to be interested in Burgerland's antics.

Thanks for the book. I'll toss you some perfectly cooked sous vide chitterlings when I see you begging on my street :3

i dont like how this guy also releases a large collection for cooking. i would understand if he was a baker all his life and tried to write down the ins and outs of everything bread, but i dont think i can find him credible if he also thinks he is worthy of writing cooking too. nobody does it all. its like the comic book nerds that always want to critique everything, like music, even tho they have no fucking idea what music is about.

Do national geographic authors pretend to have been amazon tribal folk their whole lives?

It's literally just a rich asshole using his rich cunt connections to talk to world renowned subject matter experts, pay for top-tier photography and top-tier printing, and sell the books for a profit that he won't be ashamed of. He's not pretending to be the expert. He's just a rich guy doing another vanity project to give meaning to his life of suing productive people for ransom money.

Here's a book where you can actually do the recipes listed without investing $5,000 in special equipments first.

which is why its not worth the money. its pure ideology

>modernist anything

learn wittgenstein before you post pleb

Nobody really learns wittgenstein, they just read it enough times to get brain damage and then the mush gives an answer that is sufficiently not wrong

I suppose you haven't read the book

you mean information.

Sure, you could find all that information elsehwere but it would take a massive amount of effort. MC is valuable for the same reason an encyclopedia or a dictionary is: someone else has gone through the effort to compile a massive amount of info in a single easy-to-search location.

>he can't blow 300 bucks on his hobby

Look at them poorfags.