4 ms·

> The Anna’s archive group is ideologically motivated. Anna’s archive business is stealing copyrighted content and selling access to it. It's not ideologically

by silcoon 10mo ago

> The Anna’s archive group is ideologically motivated. Anna’s archive business is stealing copyrighted content and selling access to it. It's not ideologically motivated. What ideology is about pirating books and music where most of the people producing this stuff cannot afford to do it full-time? It's not like pirating movies, software and large videogame studios, which is still piracy, but they also make big money and they don't act all the time in the interests of the users. Writers and musicians are mostly broken. If we sum the rising cost of living, AI generated content and piracy, there's almost no reward left for their work. Anna’s archive is contributing to the art and culture decadence. They sell you premium bandwidth for downloading and training your AIs on copyrighted content, so soon we can all generate more and more slop.

avoutos 10mo ago
Agreed. I see far too many people rationalizing piracy as a principled thing to do. Instead of finding ways to improve the market such that the control of content isn't siloed in monopolistic corporations, many celebrate Annas Archive which is itself a more or less monopolistic profit-interested entity. The major difference being that we don't have to pay directly. The cost continues to fall on the writers and artists and the industry suffers.
- komali2 10mo ago
  > Instead of finding ways to improve the market such that the control of content isn't siloed in monopolistic corporations I always assumed the "Anna" in the name was for "Anarchist." My assumption about the archive is that they don't believe there's an ethical solution to the restriction of access to data that involves a capitalist market.
  - silcoon 10mo ago
    I get your point but then let's not complains if creativity dies and things all look the same. Creative people don't have motivation to produce if they can't make a living out of it.
    - komali2 10mo ago
      > Creative people don't have motivation to produce if they can't make a living out of it. I challenge you to ask 10 creative people in your life if they would stop doing whatever it is they do if they had a billion dollars.
      - lotsofpulp 10mo ago
        The desire to create something does not seem like an immutable characteristic.
      - v9v 10mo ago
        Would they do what they do if they had zero dollars?
        nani8ot 10mo ago
        Yes, as long as they have enough to survive, people generally have some free time. I know someone who's living paycheck to paycheck and they make music as a hobby. Obviously, if you have to work 16 hours a day to survive they wouldn't do it – or at least they wouldn't have the capacity to share it.
        komali2 10mo ago
        > Would they do what they do if they had zero dollars? No, probably not. Isn't it a shame we live in a world where we have the technology to automate all meaningful production, but people still need to justify their existence through often meaningless labor? That said, I know artists that make the bare minimum to survive, on purpose, so they have more time to focus on art.
    - moritzruth 10mo ago
      > Creative people don't have motivation to produce if they can't make a living out of it. That is simply not true. Most artists do what they do without ever seeing any money for it.
      - 10mo ago
- ptero 10mo ago
  Nothing wrong in rationalizing content sharing; as in rationalizing copyright. But IMO the current form of the copyright for both the technical and the creative works is a cure that is worse than the disease. Recommending to an individual to work on changing copyright from within the system is, IMO, naive.
vintermann 10mo ago
> Anna’s archive business is stealing copyrighted content and selling access to it. There is not enough profit in that compared to the risk. They're also not exactly aggressive about it (there are groups which host mirrors who charge far more/finance it in the usual criminal way of getting people to install malware). To me, there's a "motivation gap" between what they get out of this and the effort it takes, so there's some kind of "ideology". Whether it's 100% what they say it is, is another question.
frm88 10mo ago
Writers and musicians are mostly broken. If we sum the rising cost of living, AI generated content and piracy, there's almost no reward left for their work. For authors (books) ~70% of all the book sales go to the publisher, not the author (trad pub): https://reedsy.com/blog/how-much-do-authors-make/ https://reedsy.com/blog/how-much-do-authors-make/ For musicians: depending on how big a name you are and which publisher you chose, the publishers compensation ranges from 15% (small name/indy) to 60% (big name/Universal, Sony) https://www.careersinmusic.com/music-publishing/ https://www.careersinmusic.com/music-publishing/ This is an industry with profit maximising as its goal like every other industry. If artists are broke, first take a look at the publishers.

by silcoon 10mo ago

avoutos 10mo ago

Agreed. I see far too many people rationalizing piracy as a principled thing to do. Instead of finding ways to improve the market such that the control of content isn't siloed in monopolistic corporations, many celebrate Annas Archive which is itself a more or less monopolistic profit-interested entity. The major difference being that we don't have to pay directly. The cost continues to fall on the writers and artists and the industry suffers.

komali2 10mo ago
> Instead of finding ways to improve the market such that the control of content isn't siloed in monopolistic corporations I always assumed the "Anna" in the name was for "Anarchist." My assumption about the archive is that they don't believe there's an ethical solution to the restriction of access to data that involves a capitalist market.
- silcoon 10mo ago
  I get your point but then let's not complains if creativity dies and things all look the same. Creative people don't have motivation to produce if they can't make a living out of it.
  - komali2 10mo ago
    > Creative people don't have motivation to produce if they can't make a living out of it. I challenge you to ask 10 creative people in your life if they would stop doing whatever it is they do if they had a billion dollars.
    - lotsofpulp 10mo ago
      The desire to create something does not seem like an immutable characteristic.
    - v9v 10mo ago
      Would they do what they do if they had zero dollars?
      - nani8ot 10mo ago
        Yes, as long as they have enough to survive, people generally have some free time. I know someone who's living paycheck to paycheck and they make music as a hobby. Obviously, if you have to work 16 hours a day to survive they wouldn't do it – or at least they wouldn't have the capacity to share it.
      - komali2 10mo ago
        > Would they do what they do if they had zero dollars? No, probably not. Isn't it a shame we live in a world where we have the technology to automate all meaningful production, but people still need to justify their existence through often meaningless labor? That said, I know artists that make the bare minimum to survive, on purpose, so they have more time to focus on art.
  - moritzruth 10mo ago
    > Creative people don't have motivation to produce if they can't make a living out of it. That is simply not true. Most artists do what they do without ever seeing any money for it.
    - 10mo ago
ptero 10mo ago
Nothing wrong in rationalizing content sharing; as in rationalizing copyright. But IMO the current form of the copyright for both the technical and the creative works is a cure that is worse than the disease. Recommending to an individual to work on changing copyright from within the system is, IMO, naive.

vintermann 10mo ago

> Anna’s archive business is stealing copyrighted content and selling access to it. There is not enough profit in that compared to the risk. They're also not exactly aggressive about it (there are groups which host mirrors who charge far more/finance it in the usual criminal way of getting people to install malware). To me, there's a "motivation gap" between what they get out of this and the effort it takes, so there's some kind of "ideology". Whether it's 100% what they say it is, is another question.

frm88 10mo ago

Writers and musicians are mostly broken. If we sum the rising cost of living, AI generated content and piracy, there's almost no reward left for their work. For authors (books) ~70% of all the book sales go to the publisher, not the author (trad pub): https://reedsy.com/blog/how-much-do-authors-make/ https://reedsy.com/blog/how-much-do-authors-make/ For musicians: depending on how big a name you are and which publisher you chose, the publishers compensation ranges from 15% (small name/indy) to 60% (big name/Universal, Sony) https://www.careersinmusic.com/music-publishing/ https://www.careersinmusic.com/music-publishing/ This is an industry with profit maximising as its goal like every other industry. If artists are broke, first take a look at the publishers.