3 ms·

Isn't it humorous how citizens are pro Anna's archive, but governments are against it? Bit of additional evidence for elitism and such.

jimbokun 1y ago
What about writers?
- MYEUHD 1y ago
  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.
  - black_knight 1y ago
    This is true for me! For authors like, I might read a few epubs, then buy their entire series in hardcover (or paperback if no hardcover is available) to have in my bookshelves for rainy days.
  - kelnos 1y ago
    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.
    - solidsnack9000 1y ago
      I actually have bought many books that I started reading online. The book format is useful.
    - wiseowise 1y ago
      I do. When I was poor – I couldn't do it. Now that I'm wealthy and can afford any book, I prefer to take a quick look at online version and then buy a physical copy.
    - baq 1y ago
      Kids who don’t have pocket money won’t, but they aren’t lost sales anyway.
    - lucb1e 1y ago
      If you and I would support the works we think are good, why wouldn't others? I keep noticing that people constantly expect worse morals from others than how they claim they are themselves It's easy to add a "me too" onto the existing list but that's not my point. I think we generally can expect better from the average person than we instinctively do. If 50% of people are just as honest as we are (if we're average persons which, on average, we are), that would be easily worth it if free distribution of a book gets you a 3x bigger reach as compared to when people have to pay up front. I'm not aware of research confirming or refuting this (of course I'd like to believe that information can be free), but it doesn't seem so outlandish to me that we can ignore the option altogether by doing a sniff test
    - fsflover 1y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15305476 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15305476 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
    - dartharva 1y ago
      The official EU study that proves exactly this is just one google search away, but here: https://cdn.netzpolitik.org/wp-upload/2017/09/displacement_study.pdf https://cdn.netzpolitik.org/wp-upload/2017/09/displacement_s...
  - joha4270 1y ago
    Even if that might be the case now, I doubt that holds if piracy becomes truly widespread. I would suspect A pirates book B and tells C about it, C buys book B is a lot more common than A pirates book B and likes it enough to buy it I have no data to support this, and while I have paid for things I could access for free, but I'm sufficiently pessimistic about human nature to think that's the norm.
    - pcthrowaway 1y ago
      Piracy has been "truly widespread" for decades now. Most people who are able to, still pay for things, especially if they're convenient. Even when those services actually add additional restrictions to their access to the media they think they're paying for.
    - IAmBroom 1y ago
      "Despite the data, I continue to guess that in the future my hypothesis will be true." Bold. Not inherently incorrect, but not optimally heuristic.
      - fsflover 1y ago
        Despite which data? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15305476 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15305476
- skeaker 1y ago
  Depends. I've seen some in favor and some against. Academics who have their papers paywalled by publishing entities against their own wills are generally for it.
  - griffzhowl 1y ago
    Academics get their income from their university positions, and don't get any royalties from sales of their articles. Instead, the benefit they get from publishing is to their reputation, and for that it's better for their work to be as available as possible. It's completely different for a writer who gets their income from sales of their work, obviously
    - skeaker 1y ago
      Yep. And not that you asked, but my own opinion (not theirs) is that even writers who get income from sales will be fine either way. Reading a book for free and then buying it to support the author if you want to has been a practice for longer than the internet has existed. It's exactly how libraries have always worked!
- hereme888 1y ago
  My comment made the assumption that everything in Anna's archive is the result of taxpayer-funded or public research.
thomassmith65 1y ago
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.
- mft_ 1y ago
  IMO, Scihub and the ebook parts of AA should be considered differently and not conflated. In particular, Scihub is in opposition to the parasitic international publishers who dominate and control scientific publishing for profit, mostly on the backs of science generated by academia and other not-in-it-for-the-profit folks. In contrast, downloading ebooks may, in some cases, lead to individual authors being hit in the pocket, in a profession it’s already hard to make a living from. (I wish we’d figured out a better way to organise book publishing without publishing companies getting in the way and taking their large slice, allowing authors to profit more directly.)
  - thomassmith65 1y ago
    That's an excellent point. The problem cases with AA are edge cases on sci-hub.
- baq 1y ago
  The law only benefits the most popular authors, otherwise it protects publishers primarily.
- hereme888 1y ago
  I made the assumption everything relates to scientific papers that have been made public or were taxpayer funded.
- _thisdot 1y ago
  I know one popular author who doesn't care: Brandon Sanderson. In addition he makes it possible to buy DRM free ebooks from his website. In his words: “My experience has been that readers want to support things they like … But if they are at a point in their lives where they can’t, then it’s better to let them read the stories they want … and let them support artists when they’re capable of it. So I am a big fan of giving away books for free.” Source: https://www.jotdown.es/2016/12/brandon-sanderson-i-want-to-show-in-my-writing-that-there-is-something-inherently-good-inside-human-beings/ https://www.jotdown.es/2016/12/brandon-sanderson-i-want-to-s...

jimbokun 1y ago

What about writers?

MYEUHD 1y ago
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.
- black_knight 1y ago
  This is true for me! For authors like, I might read a few epubs, then buy their entire series in hardcover (or paperback if no hardcover is available) to have in my bookshelves for rainy days.
- kelnos 1y ago
  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.
  - solidsnack9000 1y ago
    I actually have bought many books that I started reading online. The book format is useful.
  - wiseowise 1y ago
    I do. When I was poor – I couldn't do it. Now that I'm wealthy and can afford any book, I prefer to take a quick look at online version and then buy a physical copy.
  - baq 1y ago
    Kids who don’t have pocket money won’t, but they aren’t lost sales anyway.
  - lucb1e 1y ago
    If you and I would support the works we think are good, why wouldn't others? I keep noticing that people constantly expect worse morals from others than how they claim they are themselves It's easy to add a "me too" onto the existing list but that's not my point. I think we generally can expect better from the average person than we instinctively do. If 50% of people are just as honest as we are (if we're average persons which, on average, we are), that would be easily worth it if free distribution of a book gets you a 3x bigger reach as compared to when people have to pay up front. I'm not aware of research confirming or refuting this (of course I'd like to believe that information can be free), but it doesn't seem so outlandish to me that we can ignore the option altogether by doing a sniff test
  - fsflover 1y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15305476 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15305476 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
  - dartharva 1y ago
    The official EU study that proves exactly this is just one google search away, but here: https://cdn.netzpolitik.org/wp-upload/2017/09/displacement_study.pdf https://cdn.netzpolitik.org/wp-upload/2017/09/displacement_s...
- joha4270 1y ago
  Even if that might be the case now, I doubt that holds if piracy becomes truly widespread. I would suspect A pirates book B and tells C about it, C buys book B is a lot more common than A pirates book B and likes it enough to buy it I have no data to support this, and while I have paid for things I could access for free, but I'm sufficiently pessimistic about human nature to think that's the norm.
  - pcthrowaway 1y ago
    Piracy has been "truly widespread" for decades now. Most people who are able to, still pay for things, especially if they're convenient. Even when those services actually add additional restrictions to their access to the media they think they're paying for.
  - IAmBroom 1y ago
    "Despite the data, I continue to guess that in the future my hypothesis will be true." Bold. Not inherently incorrect, but not optimally heuristic.
    - fsflover 1y ago
      Despite which data? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15305476 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15305476
skeaker 1y ago
Depends. I've seen some in favor and some against. Academics who have their papers paywalled by publishing entities against their own wills are generally for it.
- griffzhowl 1y ago
  Academics get their income from their university positions, and don't get any royalties from sales of their articles. Instead, the benefit they get from publishing is to their reputation, and for that it's better for their work to be as available as possible. It's completely different for a writer who gets their income from sales of their work, obviously
  - skeaker 1y ago
    Yep. And not that you asked, but my own opinion (not theirs) is that even writers who get income from sales will be fine either way. Reading a book for free and then buying it to support the author if you want to has been a practice for longer than the internet has existed. It's exactly how libraries have always worked!
hereme888 1y ago
My comment made the assumption that everything in Anna's archive is the result of taxpayer-funded or public research.

thomassmith65 1y ago

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.

mft_ 1y ago
IMO, Scihub and the ebook parts of AA should be considered differently and not conflated. In particular, Scihub is in opposition to the parasitic international publishers who dominate and control scientific publishing for profit, mostly on the backs of science generated by academia and other not-in-it-for-the-profit folks. In contrast, downloading ebooks may, in some cases, lead to individual authors being hit in the pocket, in a profession it’s already hard to make a living from. (I wish we’d figured out a better way to organise book publishing without publishing companies getting in the way and taking their large slice, allowing authors to profit more directly.)
- thomassmith65 1y ago
  That's an excellent point. The problem cases with AA are edge cases on sci-hub.
baq 1y ago
The law only benefits the most popular authors, otherwise it protects publishers primarily.
hereme888 1y ago
I made the assumption everything relates to scientific papers that have been made public or were taxpayer funded.
_thisdot 1y ago
I know one popular author who doesn't care: Brandon Sanderson. In addition he makes it possible to buy DRM free ebooks from his website. In his words: “My experience has been that readers want to support things they like … But if they are at a point in their lives where they can’t, then it’s better to let them read the stories they want … and let them support artists when they’re capable of it. So I am a big fan of giving away books for free.” Source: https://www.jotdown.es/2016/12/brandon-sanderson-i-want-to-show-in-my-writing-that-there-is-something-inherently-good-inside-human-beings/ https://www.jotdown.es/2016/12/brandon-sanderson-i-want-to-s...