5 ms·

I am also a strong supporter of them, but I wrote them immediately and said that this plan of theirs was both very illegal and insulting to artists, writers and

I am also a strong supporter of them, but I wrote them immediately and said that this plan of theirs was both very illegal and insulting to artists, writers and creators throughout the world. The only reason we have professional or semi-professional artists and writers is because they're able to sell copies one way or another. The EFF and the IA would like to believe the writers and publishers are outrageously wealthy and able to sustain the kind of bleeding and pseudo-piracy they endorse. The reality is that most are barely getting by. It's sad to watch the richy riches of Silicon Valley steal from the artists and writers.

reedciccio 4y ago
I think you have the story backwards: the artists starve not because the IA shared books in a planetary emergency. It's because publishers don't remunerate the creators fairly but turn cash to the executives and shareholders instead. Doctorow and the EFF have multiple explanations of why this happens and it has nothing to do with Napster-like tech.
- kmeisthax 4y ago
  Yeah. Strictly speaking, the reason why the music industry shat their pants over Napster was because someone found out a more economically efficient way to scam artists. They'd been fighting for decades to ensure that they would be the one ripping off artists, and then charging the public as if the artists were actually making a decent living. Every time I see an artist worry about online piracy, I roll my eyes. It's not not a threat, but it is a rather weak one unless you're a best-selling author or musician. You're far more likely to either get ripped off by a "for exposure" bro[0] or music label, or just have your work languish in obscurity. There's actually a bunch of authors that signed a letter of support for the Internet Archive in this suit, specifically because libraries are very, very good at getting mid-list authors into readers' hands. They value the author's work at the expense of the publisher's ownership, which is why publishers hate them. An author that gets a bunch of library exposure can sell people on another book tomorrow, but the publisher is out on "lost sales" today. [0] I expect this to be replaced with GPT/SD enabled hustles eventually
- mudita 4y ago
  Is this true? The author Charles Stross wrote "Your typical book publisher is not like the music or movie industry; they run on thin margins, and they're staffed by underpaid, overworked folk who do it because they love books, not because they're trying to make themselves rich on the back of a thousand ruthlessly exploited artists. I think their effort deserves to be rewarded appropriately." (http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/03/reminder-why-theres-no-tipjar.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/03/reminder...)
toomuchtodo 4y ago
You're blaming the Internet Archive (an online library) for the sins of publishers and the broad devaluation of digital content due to the Internet? For example, Spotify pays pennies per stream because that is what the content is worth when there is so much available. Piracy didn't kill copyright value capture by artists, the Internet did (just as LLMs will devalue intellectual work). This is scarcity inertia having an existential crisis with technology enabled abundance. This started during Napster times, and is why bands derive most of their income from touring and merch. Please reconsider your position based on the evidence. We need to figure out a way to compensate creatives, but the Internet Archive providing access to content in a controlled manner is not of material impact to the economic situation. Z-library and LibGen make content available with no controls already.

reedciccio 4y ago

I think you have the story backwards: the artists starve not because the IA shared books in a planetary emergency. It's because publishers don't remunerate the creators fairly but turn cash to the executives and shareholders instead. Doctorow and the EFF have multiple explanations of why this happens and it has nothing to do with Napster-like tech.

kmeisthax 4y ago
Yeah. Strictly speaking, the reason why the music industry shat their pants over Napster was because someone found out a more economically efficient way to scam artists. They'd been fighting for decades to ensure that they would be the one ripping off artists, and then charging the public as if the artists were actually making a decent living. Every time I see an artist worry about online piracy, I roll my eyes. It's not not a threat, but it is a rather weak one unless you're a best-selling author or musician. You're far more likely to either get ripped off by a "for exposure" bro[0] or music label, or just have your work languish in obscurity. There's actually a bunch of authors that signed a letter of support for the Internet Archive in this suit, specifically because libraries are very, very good at getting mid-list authors into readers' hands. They value the author's work at the expense of the publisher's ownership, which is why publishers hate them. An author that gets a bunch of library exposure can sell people on another book tomorrow, but the publisher is out on "lost sales" today. [0] I expect this to be replaced with GPT/SD enabled hustles eventually
mudita 4y ago
Is this true? The author Charles Stross wrote "Your typical book publisher is not like the music or movie industry; they run on thin margins, and they're staffed by underpaid, overworked folk who do it because they love books, not because they're trying to make themselves rich on the back of a thousand ruthlessly exploited artists. I think their effort deserves to be rewarded appropriately." (http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/03/reminder-why-theres-no-tipjar.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/03/reminder...)

toomuchtodo 4y ago

You're blaming the Internet Archive (an online library) for the sins of publishers and the broad devaluation of digital content due to the Internet? For example, Spotify pays pennies per stream because that is what the content is worth when there is so much available. Piracy didn't kill copyright value capture by artists, the Internet did (just as LLMs will devalue intellectual work). This is scarcity inertia having an existential crisis with technology enabled abundance. This started during Napster times, and is why bands derive most of their income from touring and merch. Please reconsider your position based on the evidence. We need to figure out a way to compensate creatives, but the Internet Archive providing access to content in a controlled manner is not of material impact to the economic situation. Z-library and LibGen make content available with no controls already.