Site appears to be down. Is there a mirror or open source repo ?
A search engine for searching books in the Z-Library index on the IPFS network
211–215 of 215 posts
Re: A search engine for searching books in the Z-Library index on the IPFS network
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
Working on this now, cherry-picked audio from such AI systems abound, but submitting arbitrary text for audio synthesis requires a much higher quality bar to be listenable. Planning to have something out early 2023.
What's the best off the shelf solution you've found? I've been trying a few different apps to read my queued articles to me, but all of the voices are awful.
Honestly I haven't found one that I'd call really usable. That's why I'm building it myself. There are a lot of applications that are fine to listen to for like super short text (a few sentences), but for any long-form prose it gets intolerable IMO. And that's from someone who has listened to lots of intolerable audio from my own system.
EDIT: I'll also add that although there are *many* TTS apps, the true diversity is far less because most of these services are using Amazon Polly, Azure, or GCP's equivalents.
Re: A search engine for searching books in the Z-Library index on the IPFS network
#213Indeed the site seems to be down but you can use this site as an alternative: - https://zlib.freedit.eu Or else the project is opensource you can install it by yourself: - https://github.com/zu1k/zlib-searcher
Re: A search engine for searching books in the Z-Library index on the IPFS network
#214The link is no longer working:
zlib.zu1k.com’s DNS address could not be found. Diagnosing the problem.
Re: A search engine for searching books in the Z-Library index on the IPFS network
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
Q: How exactly do you distribute the fee among authors? The model of mechanical royalties already exists in the music industry. That provides a useful model for other copyrighted works. Effectively this creates a regulated, universal, legally-defined market. I can see some variations in rates based on content types, discussed in previous HN discussions. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royalty_payment#Mechanical_ro…
> The model of mechanical royalties already exists in the music industry. I refer to your earlier post, though: > …could provide access to every work ever published, pay authors, and eliminate both the need and practice of piracy. I don’t think the model of music royalties, as it exists, could or does any of those things, nor do I think the model could ever be adapted to achieve those ends. Moreover, I don’t think in…
Apologies for the late reply, I've only just seen yours. If you'd like you can contact me by email to continue the discussion (HN username at protonmail).
Q: I don’t think the model of music royalties ... could do any of these things ...
My larger point is that the money is already in the system, and is being paid by households. Only that it's via advertising with multiple perverse effects on the media ecosystem itself.
Some examples I've addressed in earlier posts:
https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/23twec/weaponi...>
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11592888>
You're being vague as to what the failings of a royalty-based system are, and whilst I could presume some of those problems and/or possible solutions ( UBI ). Much of what I'd suggest revolves around a number of concepts:
1. That content-creation as it exists is a high-stakes, infrequent-reward, winner-take-most sweepstakes. Much of existing publishing and distribution actually mitigates for this, as with "tentpost" cinema, music, and publishing titles and/or talents.
2. That in-depth detailed work in journalism, education, science, and technology especially relies strongly on durable institutions with a reliable income as well as defence mechanisms against the various forms of attacks and corruption these draw, e.g., libel, co-option. Large publishers often have strong legal defence teams, as well as contracts. Educational institutions, NGOs, publishing groups, news organisations, and creators' guilds might be possible such durable organisations. Groups need not be large. I'm reminded of visiting a local library to inquire about free room reservations: these were available to any citizen group requesting one, where a group was three or more people. There's power in numbers, especially when given an organisational banner.
3. That "reward for audience" is itself a fairly poor compensation metric. Yes, there are justifiable winners, but there are far too many unjustified losers, or works recongised only at much remove for their quality. Some way of balancing this out might be useful, and I'm open for ideas and criticisms.
4. That remunerative reward is a rather poor inducement for quality authorship. I discovered my spirit animal in Schopenhauer's "On Authorship": https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Literature/On_Auth...>
Q: It would mark the death...
To which I respond:
- The system I propose would not be the only compensation mechanism, but it would be a guaranteed one (perhaps again with other mechanisms such as UBI and group/guild organisations).
- I'm honestly baffled as to why you think that dissenting voices would not have access to such a system. It is universal to both audience and creators.
- The extant system has marked the death of numerous forms of desirable and even essential authorship, most notably quality, incisive, independent local journalism, but extending to artistic works in text, audio, and film.
- What conditions would promote the types of works you describe? How well, exactly, does the present model work for those?
- Complaints about the rise of a massive rent-seeking class of mediocre and unchallenging artists in light of the present state of publishing seem ... archly ironic.
Again, if you care to follow up by email, invitation's open. I'm also @dredmorbius@toot.cat on the Fediverse.