Anna's Archive: An Update from the Team

Post by paradox460 » Tue, Aug 19, 2025, 1:36 AM UTC

troupo wrote: post #269

computerdork wrote: post #202

Know am going to be downvoted into oblivion, but as a composer, can see it from the side of creators. Yeah, making their products free is starving these industries. For instance, in music, there is already very little money in music (think about how many musicians you personally know who can make a living off of music, besides being a music teacher). And, the music industry is still not even the same size as it was i…

Music got commoditized. In the 90s the good bands got lucky that their distributors picked them up and promoted them etc. You just don't remember the amount of crap that was on at any given point in time. Today you have instant access to millions of songs around the world in every genre imaginable: https://everynoise.com/ And not just to the whatever few records your local store carried, or what the Big Four paid the…

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Aug 19, 2025, 1:50 AM UTC

_DeadFred_ wrote: post #155

jonahx wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tension arises because in some cases, at least for a while, the availability can be suppressed. Like when some expert releases an expensive ebook or video course "Secrets of X". Ofc many such books are scams, but assume for sake of argument the information is actually valuable. The initial buyers are motivated not to share it. It remains a scarce commodity for a while. But all it takes is one person to make a tor…

Copyright was created because we realized that it takes effort to put works together (in the original case it was educational information) but that distribution can be done without rewarding that initial effort. Which then results in the initial effort not happening. Which then ends up in a dumber, less intelligent, idea poor world without those works. Society agreed to copyright because of the social benefit of havi…

Post by pavel_lishin » Tue, Aug 19, 2025, 2:19 AM UTC

shortstuffsushi wrote: post #216

pavel_lishin wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is a useful path to go down; there's a legal precedent for cover songs, and perhaps he did pay the fee: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/question-when-mechan...

I actually think it's ironic for precisely that reason. Similar to covering music, there is a legal precedent for making books available in public libraries - though most cover artists don't pay the royalties, and in this case this online library is not paying the GP. In the case that GP did in fact pay the fee, I rescind my criticism.

Post by anoushiravan » Tue, Aug 19, 2025, 2:35 AM UTC

baq wrote: post #258

jancsika wrote: post #169

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

> ability to fund shadow libraries without fear of censorship Bitcoin is much worse than cash in that regard

Post by charcircuit » Tue, Aug 19, 2025, 3:03 AM UTC

kemayo wrote: post #362

Aurornis wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Am I an exception? Years ago I was following development of an indie game. The developers wanted to provide a DRM-free experience. The game had some online functionality (leaderboard or something). They were surprised when the number of accounts accessing the online functionality exceeded their sales by a dramatic number. The developer updates grew more and more sad as they switched from discussing new features to…

The difficult bit is working out what percentage of pirated copies are actually replacing a sale that would have happened if the content wasn't available to pirate. The more dramatic industry numbers like to claim it's 100%, which is ridiculous. It's certainly more than 0%, though. I'd assume that for your indie game, there were a lot of people who wound up thinking "I would play this if it's free, but I wouldn't spe…