21–30 of 90 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Or be more specific what doesn't sit right with you." What's not right with me, is that a donation is different from buying something, yet here it seems mixed in together.
Can you think of any legal mandates that might influence that decision?
The whole site is illegal anyway. Is there a legal difference in "donating" and getting benefits. And "buying" for benefits, when the benefits are illegal in both cases?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the FAQ, https://annas-archive.org/donation_faq >If you don’t like how we operate our project, go run your own shadow library! All our code and data are open source, so nothing is stopping you. ;) Or be more specific what doesn't sit right with you.
"Or be more specific what doesn't sit right with you." What's not right with me, is that a donation is different from buying something, yet here it seems mixed in together.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the FAQ, https://annas-archive.org/donation_faq >If you don’t like how we operate our project, go run your own shadow library! All our code and data are open source, so nothing is stopping you. ;) Or be more specific what doesn't sit right with you.
I'm unsure what quoting that to me achieves? What are your thoughts on their approach to getting donations (monthly subscriptions)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Or be more specific what doesn't sit right with you." What's not right with me, is that a donation is different from buying something, yet here it seems mixed in together.
So what are your thoughts about NPR totebags? Getting perks if you donate isn't unusual.
Small perks usually and I am critical of those as well, as they blurry the line. But here it rather looks like a usual subscription model to buy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you think of any legal mandates that might influence that decision?
Right now, no. What do you mean? The whole site is illegal anyway. Is there a legal difference in "donating" and getting benefits. And "buying" for benefits, when the benefits are illegal in both cases?
For me (not in the US), donating have a different meaning than buying. When I buy, I become a customer and it establish a business relation and the organization owe me a bunch of things (the product/the service, my customer rights …).
When I donate, it’s mainly to support a cause and I know I’m not tied to anything in return. Even if there are promised perks, the structure doesn’t owe me anything, the perk is just a mean to thank me for my donation.
Again, it’s not the legal definition from my country (or maybe, I really don’t know), it’s just what those words means culturally here.
Also, using « buy » which implies a business relationship (even an illegal one) when the project is explicitly about freeing knowledge from businesses would be pretty ironic.
While I know they need to fund servers somehow, the approach and wording of their download page doesn't sit right with me: >Fast downloads - Become a member to support the long-term preservation of books, papers, and more. To show our gratitude for your support, you get fast downloads. >[3 "Fast Partner Server" links] >Refer a friend, and both you and your friend get 50% bonus fast downloads! >[3 "Slow Partner Server…
I don't see an issue with charging users who would cause large amounts of traffic. It is a subscription model described as donations but this is common for many piracy sites.
In case anyone's wondering what this relates to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna%27s_Archive > Anna's Archive is a search engine for shadow libraries. > It describes itself as a project that aims to "catalog all the books in existence" May they succeed at their noble goal.
Doing something highly illegal and finding a "community" and sharing it with a "friend" would be a stupid move. Don't ever disclose your name if you do something like this, unless you are in a safe country.
What I find interesting is the wildly differing approach to piracy between the RIAA and the MPAA. The music industry’s current approach is to make their product as available everywhere as much as possible so that it requires far greater effort to pirate the media than to otherwise consume it. As a result piracy is rarer than it used to be and they are making more money than they used to. The movie industry still acts the way the music industry did in the 90s.
Doing something highly illegal and finding a "community" and sharing it with a "friend" would be a stupid move. Don't ever disclose your name if you do something like this, unless you are in a safe country.