Why are you complaining about it when it says "Name a fair price:" in the price field? Work went into compiling and laying this out, so, why shouldn't someone be able to easily pay for that if they want?

It's literally other people's content copy-pasted in a "book". Even "free" (you still need to enter an e-mail address) that's not a great way of generating content (I guess you could argue there is some marginal value in selecting 50 "good" posts?), taking money for it is pretty slime-y.

I would agree with you if it were not possible to pay $0. But, there was work that went into compiling and laying this out, and that does add some value. I see no problem with offering this content on this basis, for the price of an email address, especially considering you can use a throwaway address.

Then don't buy or exchange your email for it? I'm not sure why you feel the need to tell the rest of us how to morally evaluate this optional e-book. I traded my email for it and my morals weren't violated in the slightest.

Are you planning on competing with the product or do you just want to see that person fail for no particular reason?

I just gave an answer to a question asked.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

I mean I’m not a good man so the quote kind of falls apart but you get the idea.

There is no fair price for selling the work of others that you don’t have the rights to take.

And you know they don’t have those rights?

Wouldn’t they have made it clear if they did? Isn’t that traditionally how using someone’s work under a license works?

Did you ask them?

I can't respond for the OP of course, but I can tell you this: he put work in it.

He did the job of two fine respectable professions: the editor and the designer. That's worth something, even when he didn't write the content.

The big question is: did he ask permission to each person who contributed to this? One thing is to have your words in a web site, another is to have them included in a ebook that someone else is profiting off.

However, he does not own the content or have a license to redistribute or sell it, and compiling it into an ebook to sell is clearly outside of fair use doctrine.

Did he have the permission of either Reddit or the author of those comments?

It would seem it's not necessary:

"By submitting user content to reddit, you grant us a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, unrestricted, worldwide license to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute copies, perform, or publicly display your user content in any medium and for any purpose, including commercial purposes, and to authorize others to do so. (emphasis mine)

> of either Reddit

they'd need at least.

True. After re-reading it, it's clear that I can't take content, but Reddit could authorize me to; Reddit's permission is still necessary.

The question was not "it is right to take money" but, "why would OP come up with the idea of taking money".