- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
" 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”."
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.
Why would anyone comission a writer to write a textbook, if anyone was allowed to print and publish it afterwards? And why would I pay the fee for the band that has to make up for their time writing the music when I can also just visit the way cheaper concert where the same music is being performed? What would keep corporations from selling artists work without having to pay the artists?
School needs text book, school comissions some team to make text book, school pays people fairly for their effort to make text book, everyone has textbook and the only sad people are the greedy publishers who would have done no work. You want print copies you pay for cost to print from wherever you want. Besides, texts books are a pretty dead medium of learning in the digital age open source free options already exist and are being actively produced by volunteers.
You can already go see bands play other peoples music, have you really not heard of cover bands? And despite cover bands existing people like seeing the original even when the original is way past their prime.
Corporations already sell sell many artists works after only paying the artist once and never again. But, who would buy from a corporation for anything more than the printing cost? Same as the textbook scenario. Some people want new painting, people comission painting, painter get paid fairly for painting, everyone has access to new art, only greedy coroporations sad.
Sorry my fault, by textbook I meant novel. If authors of novels would want to work without publishers they could already do that today, no? I’ve heard of cover bands, but those do pay a fee in order to be allowed to play other bands’ songs live and they need the artist’s/publisher’s consent to publish recordings of their cover songs, which probably is paid for as well, I guess.
Corporations selling artists work after only paying the artist once is a flaw in the contract these two parties agreed upon and is often successfully sued against later. So this is and should be illegal. Of course individual artists might not have the finances to fight the battle against a publisher which is a problem.
I am all against coprorations and companies making money off of others people work and I see a lot of potential improvements to be made about copyright and intellectual property. But despite trying and wanting it to, I do not see it working out without any protection of creative work. But maybe that’s just my lack of understanding things (low IQ score), as indicated by the graphic in the shared article. I think it is important to separate art from knowledge though, which should be paid for by the collective and free to anyone to access.
The equation is very simple for all forms of creation. The act of creation has real value and should be compensated for (in our society this means money, but this isn’t a rule). Once created, easily replicable items are only worth their cost to replicate and all other value is artificially induced. We compensate the act of creation fairly by any of the means i mentioned before and then all other costs are material and labor. This is fairest to creators although you will see less ultra wealthy artists, this will leave more wealth potential for artists with smaller starting resources.
Also, Art and knowledge are inseparable and this is obvious when you see how a scientist crafts their knowledge into stories and artists weild their medium as engineers.
But what encourages creators to create something that many people instead of only a few will enjoy or something enduring and actually useful / of high value (in terms of benefits for other people)? Should creators not be incentivized externally to work on things people actually need and perform this work well?
As i explained before, there are already examples of creators doing this. I’ll also point you to FOSS like the Linux Kernel which runs all of the worlds super computers and most of the internet. Also we are communicating currently through examples of this.