331–340 of 560 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am curious how they’re funded. How they are able to stay online. Surely there must be people, governments etc with deep pockets that would want to take them down?
Allegedly, some companies with deep pockets have paid them for access to their collection. The collection turns out to be useful for training LLMs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I find it extremely hard to believe that most consumers have a strong enough moral compass to go out of their way to buy something they already have access to. This is zero-sum thinking. Do you oppose libraries on the same principle? Sometimes making a thing accessible can increase the overall market for the good, because it trains the behavior. The market for books requires readers, and readers are created by peop…
> Do you oppose libraries on the same principle? No, because libraries have to buy the books! If lots of people check out a book, the library will have to buy more copies! Yes, maybe the authors loose out on some revenue, but there's a clear relationship between number of readers and the author getting paid for their work. This is also why I thought the Internet Archive's lending lending library was great! I'm aware…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do you oppose libraries on the same principle? No, because libraries have to buy the books! If lots of people check out a book, the library will have to buy more copies! Yes, maybe the authors loose out on some revenue, but there's a clear relationship between number of readers and the author getting paid for their work. This is also why I thought the Internet Archive's lending lending library was great! I'm aware…
If we take this to the logical extreme - someone had to buy the book in order to upload it to Anna's archive in the first place.
As I said, I loved the Internet Archive's approach to this! That's very much not what Anna's archive is doing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Satoshi's pride: * ability to fund shadow libraries without fear of censorship * lists with a single item still count as lists
To be fair, the theory with the whole coin thing is solid, and I'd say it should count as something to be proud of even if in reality it gets tainted by speculative investments.
I'd love to see more systems exploring this combination approach. There is a saying about not being able to solve a social problem with technology. Bitcoin is the blueprint on how to do that.
Its everything that came after that point that is the problem.
Isn't it humorous how citizens are pro Anna's archive, but governments are against it? Bit of additional evidence for elitism and such.
It is neither humorous nor strange because that formulation omits authors . How many authors who write the books in Anna's archive are happy about it? I personally am pro Anna's archive (and sci-hub, etc) because I believe it benefits society to have better-read citizens. That said, I have some misgivings, because under our current system, there are issues with law and remuneration.
Also, they provide a torrents list that anyone can seed and be part of the long-term preservation. https://annas-archive.org/torrents
Interesting to see that sci-hub is about 90TB and libgen-non-fiction is 77.5TB. To me, these are the two archives that really need protecting because this is the bulk of scientific knowledge - papers and textbooks. I keep about 16TB of personal storage space in a home server (spread over 4 spinning disks). The idea of expanding to ~200 TB however seems... intimidating. You're looking at ~qty 12 16TB disks (not counti…
I wonder how much space it is as highly compressed, deduplicated, plain text files.
Does the sum of human scientific knowledge fit on a large hard drive?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've just made this person that you're arguing against up.
No, I've absolutely seen that argument made online as justification for music and movie piracy, many times, for many years. People rationalizing aren't mental giants. Piracy is generally by people who want free stuff. Not by philosophers who arrived at piracy through some line of reasoning other than wanting free stuff. The dialogue in the space is what you'd expect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we take this to the logical extreme - someone had to buy the book in order to upload it to Anna's archive in the first place.
Yes, but whereas libraries need to buy more copies of books that lots of people check out, Anna's archive only ever needs one. Not exactly sustainable for the author. As I said, I loved the Internet Archive's approach to this! That's very much not what Anna's archive is doing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IIRC it was shown that piracy increases sales for books. For example, if you pirated an ebook and liked it, you'd likely buy a physical copy.
That's absurd. I could potentially believe the conclusion that piracy doesn't take away from sales (that is, most people who pirate would otherwise do without, and not buy a copy). But the idea that many/most (or even some significantly-small percentage) of people who pirate will buy copies of the things they like? No, that doesn't pass the sniff test.
EU paid for report that concluded piracy isn’t harmful, tried to hide findings (thenextweb.com)
280 points by tchalla on Sept 21, 2017 | 59 comments