- cross-posted to:
- technology@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- technology@beehaw.org
" 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 must log in or register to comment.
So in this article, they say that they are fully against any copyright laws. I’m just wondering what’s the alternative for artists to get paid?
In a perfect world everything should be accessible to everyone freely. But obviously we don’t live in this utopia. So if there was no copyright laws, how would artists receive any compensation or make a living?
Is the argument that art should be a hobby or just left for the rich who can afford to do it?
I’m genuinely interested in hearing an alternative to copyright laws.
For example if pirating became fully legal, amazon or any other corporation would simply just use that to either take in all profits for themselves or give it for free to drive traffic and make money in some other way while the actual creator would end up with nothing.
Is the current situation the best of both world for the time being? Maybe. At least this way, people can still get it for freee with some effort, while most people pay for it.
But obviously this leaves pirating websites vulnerable to be taken down at any moment, so that’s a problem. But again if you legalize it, then the big corporations would abuse it.
Anyway, just some thoughts. Eager to hear some other opinions.
Still figuring this platform out so hopefully this comment works.
Think of a comissioned painting. The artist is paid fairly once for that painting and then they never get money for it again. Copyright doesn’t protect them so much as it protects those that can use their excess capital to horde things. Art has been around forever, copyright is new. Bands that make great music will be paid to perform, actors paid on set, writers as comission or sallaried. None of this needs copyright. Hell, the rise in free community/patron sponsored content like khan academy, most podcasts, and even some music artists proves we don’t need copyright even in a system where it exists.
I’ve always felt that copyright doesnt always help artists but I’ve never heard anyone explain it like this before. You just blew my mind.
If you are legitimately interested in this I’d strongly recommend reading Kinsella’s “Against Intellectual Property”
