this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2023
73 points (98.7% liked)

Piracy

22351 readers
3 users here now

Welcome to /c/piracy

No netflix or streaming services landlubbers allowed, this is pirates territory.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

" I run Anna’s Archive, the world’s largest open-source non-profit search engine for shadow libraries, like Sci-Hub, Library Genesis, and Z-Library. Our goal is to make knowledge and culture readily accessible, and ultimately to build a community of people who together archive and preserve all the books in the world ... In this article I’ll show how we run this website, and the unique challenges that come with operating a website with questionable legal status, since there is no “AWS for shadow charities”."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Sorry my fault, by textbook I meant novel. If authors of novels would want to work without publishers they could already do that today, no? I've heard of cover bands, but those do pay a fee in order to be allowed to play other bands' songs live and they need the artist's/publisher's consent to publish recordings of their cover songs, which probably is paid for as well, I guess.

Corporations selling artists work after only paying the artist once is a flaw in the contract these two parties agreed upon and is often successfully sued against later. So this is and should be illegal. Of course individual artists might not have the finances to fight the battle against a publisher which is a problem.

I am all against coprorations and companies making money off of others people work and I see a lot of potential improvements to be made about copyright and intellectual property. But despite trying and wanting it to, I do not see it working out without any protection of creative work. But maybe that's just my lack of understanding things (low IQ score), as indicated by the graphic in the shared article. I think it is important to separate art from knowledge though, which should be paid for by the collective and free to anyone to access.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The equation is very simple for all forms of creation. The act of creation has real value and should be compensated for (in our society this means money, but this isn't a rule). Once created, easily replicable items are only worth their cost to replicate and all other value is artificially induced. We compensate the act of creation fairly by any of the means i mentioned before and then all other costs are material and labor. This is fairest to creators although you will see less ultra wealthy artists, this will leave more wealth potential for artists with smaller starting resources.

Also, Art and knowledge are inseparable and this is obvious when you see how a scientist crafts their knowledge into stories and artists weild their medium as engineers.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But what encourages creators to create something that many people instead of only a few will enjoy or something enduring and actually useful / of high value (in terms of benefits for other people)? Should creators not be incentivized externally to work on things people actually need and perform this work well?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

As i explained before, there are already examples of creators doing this. I'll also point you to FOSS like the Linux Kernel which runs all of the worlds super computers and most of the internet. Also we are communicating currently through examples of this.