4 ms·
Major efforts at creating "everything" libraries are usually looked upon as a positive effort that benefits all of humanity, and we generally mourn the loss of
by thomasingalls 2y ago
Major efforts at creating "everything" libraries are usually looked upon as a positive effort that benefits all of humanity, and we generally mourn the loss of any such effort, regardless of whether the effort is against the laws of the state at the time the effort was undertaken, or even if the collection was created in a morally reprehensible way.
See: Library of Alexandria, Library of Congress, GenBank, the Svalbard seed vault, Google Books, Internet Archive and all its efforts, ...the Louvre, and most major museums.
In general, we collectively recognize - without having to be told - that preservation of knowledge is a noble and worthy effort that transcends the fleeting whims of a population at a point in time.
All that to say, people probably don't need to be tricked into liking such efforts. They're popular because of what they are.
- friend_Fernando 2y agoNo one is objecting to knowledge preservation - when you just preserve it instead of abundantly replicating it with a wink. Reasonable people are objecting to copyright law violation, for the simple reason that it disincentivizes further knowledge creation. Even more reasonable people are objecting to weaponizing copyright law violation on behalf of the vilest dictatorship on the planet.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- greenie_beans 2y ago> Reasonable people are objecting to copyright law violation, for the simple reason that it disincentivizes further knowledge creation. how?
- myrmidon 2y ago> Reasonable people are objecting to copyright law violation, for the simple reason that it disincentivizes further knowledge creation. Do you honestly believe that our current copyright framework is mainly aligned at maximizing incentives for knowledge creation? This sounds absurd to me. From my point of view, the copyright framework has been shaped (by continous lobbying efforts) into a system to maximize extraction of profits from existing IPs. That is very different from incentivizing "knowledge creation", because the lions share of income is spent on overhead or distributed to shareholders, with the "knowledge creator" (i.e. author), getting <20% of each sale. Furthermore, the mechanisms to balance income are ALSO abysmal (to maximize knowledge creation incentives, it would be necessary to "overspend" significantly on "young" writers, enabling them to feed themselves at the start of their careers). > weaponizing copyright law violation on behalf of the vilest dictatorship on the planet. How is Annas archive weaponizing copyright violation? How is it furthering Putins interests?