The thing is, ISBNs aren't hierarchical --- they are bought in blocks (or even individually at an exorbitant markup, says the guy who bought one to reprint a single book), so this doesn't show anything really interesting/useful.
A visualization using LoC or even Dewey Decimal would be far more useful, esp. if it also linked to public domain and copyright-free repositories/lists, say an interactive and visual version of John Mark Ockerbloom's:
They can't even have a tiny fraction of the world's books. Each edition of the book gets a new ISBN... if a book is released as a paperback, hardback, kindle edition, pdf, and epub then there are supposed to be five ISBNs.
The vast, vast majority have only been released as dead-tree versions. They have none of those. The books they scan may have an ISBN, but the scans do not have them. Like all Project Gutenberg books, their books have no ISBNs at all. From a strict point of view, they've released new editions of these books.
It only sort of shows that. ISBNs are issued by edition, not title, so many books would have more than one. And books published before 1970 or so might not be represented at all if they have no recent edition.
I thought it was my color blindness that made me not able to distinguish between the red and green pixels as described (i only see red and black ones), but even with a browser extension that counters color blindness i can't distinguish more colors. Is this just me, or is the graph weird?
Fwiw (not color-blind) I can see red, green and black pixels. The graph doesn't look weird to the naked eye.
Find the interactive visualiser by scrolling down, and switch it to "Files in Anna's Archive [md5]". This will highlight the location of the green pixels in grey.
"This server couldn't prove that it's annas-archive.org; its security certificate is from *.hs.llnwd.net. This may be caused by a misconfiguration or an attacker intercepting your connection."
Yes. A DNS request for annas-archive.org to my ISP (EE in the UK) returns an address for www.ukispcourtorders.co.uk, which also gives a security warning. If I click through the warning on either site I get an HTTP 400 error.
According to Wikipedia, www.ukispcourtorders.co.uk used to list the blocked domains and the court orders responsible.
Kind of hard to tell what corresponds to what in these graphs, maybe if someone could point out Bookland (i.e. 978), it would be a bit easier to orient oneself?
annoying non-answer to my question. i already know all about anna's archive. i'm asking if a person can download these isbns and use them to make data visualizations without fear of breaking a law? https://software.annas-archive.li/AnnaArchivist/annas-archiv...
The Council of Europe has decided that the websites of RT (formerly Russia Today) and Sputnik News may no longer be transmitted. The website you are trying to visit falls under this European sanction.
It's blocked at least in the Netherlands. Weirdly it mentions it being part of the sanctions against Russia, while from a cursory search I only found a judge ordering the site to be blocked because of copyright issues (thanks Brein). They probably just show the wrong error page?
$ dig annas-archive.org @89.101.251.228
annas-archive.org. 360 IN CNAME unavailable.for.legal.reasons.
unavailable.for.legal.reasons. 339 IN A 213.46.185.10
213.46.185.10 serves a generic page mentioning Russia Today and the Pirate Bay. Not sure which one applies here.
It's blocked by my corporate networking filter for me, in the category "Illegal downloads". So the Russian sanctions message is probably incorrect indeed.
Some people in the archiving / 'data hoarding' community feel it's simpler to just back up everything. This attitude is particularly prevalent in the communities that deal with data other people have already digitised.
If you're paying $100 per book for someone to visit a major library, get the book out, scan it, check the OCR? Then you'd probably be selective, to get the most out of a limited budget.
But if you're grabbing epubs and pdfs, and a book only needs $0.002 of space on a hard drive somewhere? Grabbing the useless 41% is probably cheaper and easier than exercising editorial control.
The problem with such judgment is that they are subjective and subject to biases that change over time. Almost every scrap of information from ancient civilizations is considered priceless at this point because so few is left of it. Anything from obscene graffiti, shopping lists, personal messages, etc. All of it.
Many autocratic regimes editorialize and censure all forms of publications. But even in the US, which is nominally still a democracy you now have states like Florida forcing changes to literature works and banning books entirely for religious and ideological reasons. And this is not just a right wing thing. There have been a few publishers that took it upon themselves to editorialize literature from the 19th and 20th century to get rid of some things that are now considered sexist, racist or otherwise offensive. The whole cancel culture is not just about canceling people, but about limiting access to their work as well.
I was at a Christmas market in Berlin a few weeks ago near the Opera. There's a nice little monument there for the book burning that happened in the 1930s. Anything that was vaguely intellectual or Jewish in origin was burned right there during the Kristallnacht. Nice place for a Christmas market and a grim reminder that those calling for things to be deleted/cancelled aren't necessarily very nice people. And of course Hitler himself got cancelled. Possession or distribution of his books is still not allowed in Germany.
Anyway, imagine somebody in 5000 years finding their way to some archive of hacker news or some reddit thread might look differently at the value of some of the comments than the average moderator.
> Possession or distribution of his books is still not allowed in Germany.
AFAIK this has never been true in Germany (for the book Mein Kampf at least). AFAIK the German state of Bavaria inherited Hitler's copyright on the book, and did not republish it. This means that no one was allowed to print it for copyright reasons, but you could still own or trade existing copies of the book. After 2015, 70 years after Hitler's death, the book entered the public domain. Looking into Wikipedia, uncommented reprints have been forbidden: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mein_Kampf&oldid=..., which I didn't know before.
It seems you are correct and I was only half right. Lets just say that quoting the man in public is still likely to get you in trouble. More than a few AFD politicians are finding that out the hard way.
All action is "subjective and subject to biases that change over time". This would then imply I could never take any action, because it's just subjective and biased. Maybe that's an exaggeration of your position, but you do seem to be suggesting inaction or the impossibility of judgement. I reject this position 100%.
I would suggest that judgement is a critical part of our civilization, and it's judgement that says those bits of obscene graffiti in Pompeii that makes it so.
Or else they could say "well, we can't claim ancient cave art is priceless, because we're biased and our biases will change over time. Maybe in a thousand years we'll discover that ancient cave art is worthless, so we'll do nothing".
In fact you have judged my opinions and shared your judgement with me. Good job!
Your characterization of regimes as autocratic is judgmental, biased and will change over time. But right now that's your judgement and I applaud it, even if I disagree.
Gosh, book burning. Not backing up a romance novel or cookbook is definitely analogous to book burning, but I'll play along.
It was a symbolic act to show a rejection of ideas, not an attempt to eradicate the books, much in the same way Gandhi encouraged the burning of foreign made clothing and products. He wasn't going to rid the world of British cloth nor were the Germans going to rid the world of non-German ideas.
So yeah, when all the badly written cook books, romance novels, and children's books are in a huge bonfire, you can blame me, personally.
> All action is "subjective and subject to biases that change over time".
This is poppycock. Backing up all books -- the very action discussed by the person you're answering -- is by definition neither subjective nor subject to biases.
> This would then imply I could never take any action, because it's just subjective and biased.
And even if the first quoted claim were true, this, too, clearly isn't. Nowhere does the comment you're answering imply that the bias or subjective rationale of an action should, ipso facto, discourage a person from taking it.
Your comment is replete with similar reasoning, so warped that it's difficult to characterize as anything other than in bad faith. Indeed, this is the snottiest, rudest, least constructive comment I've seen on HN in quite some time -- excepting a couple of my snotty remarks on language or the quality of someone's writing.
I have no idea what response you expect, but the only one you deserve, I think, is one that just points out your dismissiveness, sarcasm, and breathtaking contempt. What an awful way to move through the world, let alone through HN.
I don't think you're doing it on purpose, but this is Holocaust denial. The Nazis did destroy all extant copies of several works – for example, research of the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft. (Edit: Some Judaica were sent to Prague instead of being destroyed – though apparently Hitler's planned Judaism Museum is an urban myth.) They absolutely were trying to utterly destroy – not just symbolically reject – vast swathes of culture.
Please don't make stuff up about the Holocaust. It's the sort of mistake you shouldn't make even once.
This thread should've really summoned Jason Scott, I remember him causally mentioning that he has a backup of every single 4chan post ever made (99% crap in that case, but probably invaluable for future generations of sociologists/historians who want to piece back together where it all went wrong).
There's a schlocky Victorian pulp novel that's of no use to anyone - except that it happens to contain a fantastically detailed description of an abandoned saltings in my hometown that nobody ever thought to record in any way. For me, those two paragraphs are gold.
If the novel hadn't been digitised as part of Google's Books Archive Project, I wouldn't have been able to find those two paragraphs. Digitisation not only creates backups, it enables completely new ways of interacting with those texts (eg Google's Ngram Viewer).
Well I guess your one valuable paragraph that matters only to you justifies backing up millions (billions?) of human and soon to be AI generated books, because someone, somewhere, at some time will find a line or two valuable. Maybe.
I think that's the case. IIRC The British Library has copies of all published material in the UK, including flyers and such.
What seems banal and useless to you, might be extremely important for future historians, and to be honest, books are pretty compressible and storage is cheap.
I think its a law in almost all nations in fact that forces publishers to sent a copy of everything they publish to a national archive like that (the US equivalent is the Library of Congress). If you bring up the topic of preservation, most people won't understand why, or even be opposed to the idea, goes to show that sometimes its a good idea to ignore the ignorant public.
>There is much to explore here, so we’re announcing a bounty for improving the visualization above. Unlike most of our bounties, this one is time-bound. You have to submit your open source code by 2025-01-31 (23:59 UTC).
>The best submission will get $6,000, second place is $3,000, and third place is $1,000.
>All bounties will be awarded using Monero (XMR).
? Why are they using crypto, and, weirdly enough, specifically the crypto people use for buying drugs, to award this?
Because the efforts of Anna's Archive are unfortunately currently very much illegal, and XMR is one of the few cryptocurrencies that can actually offer some privacy to its users.
Because it is a book download site, which is illegal in every country that has copyright, and revealing one's identity with a bank transfer would be a stupid way to go to jail.
They use monero because what they are doing (copyright infringement) will get you in to big trouble anywhere in the western world. Without cryptocurrencies much of the modern large scale archival efforts wouldn't be possible, or at the very least would significantly increase risks for the people participating in it. For me this alone is a good enough reason to admit that there are valid reasons for existence of privacy coins.
The harm they may cause in the short term via tax avoidance or being used to buy drugs is minimal, but the possibility that because of them archivists are able to fund servers for data that future historians wouldn't have otherwise been able to get their hands on? Priceless.
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.
> 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?
The thing is, ISBNs aren't hierarchical --- they are bought in blocks (or even individually at an exorbitant markup, says the guy who bought one to reprint a single book), so this doesn't show anything really interesting/useful.
A visualization using LoC or even Dewey Decimal would be far more useful, esp. if it also linked to public domain and copyright-free repositories/lists, say an interactive and visual version of John Mark Ockerbloom's:
https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/
It shows what they want to show, which is mostly how much of the world books they have. Hierarchical has nothing to do with it.
They can't even have a tiny fraction of the world's books. Each edition of the book gets a new ISBN... if a book is released as a paperback, hardback, kindle edition, pdf, and epub then there are supposed to be five ISBNs.
The vast, vast majority have only been released as dead-tree versions. They have none of those. The books they scan may have an ISBN, but the scans do not have them. Like all Project Gutenberg books, their books have no ISBNs at all. From a strict point of view, they've released new editions of these books.
It only sort of shows that. ISBNs are issued by edition, not title, so many books would have more than one. And books published before 1970 or so might not be represented at all if they have no recent edition.
I thought it was my color blindness that made me not able to distinguish between the red and green pixels as described (i only see red and black ones), but even with a browser extension that counters color blindness i can't distinguish more colors. Is this just me, or is the graph weird?
Fwiw (not color-blind) I can see red, green and black pixels. The graph doesn't look weird to the naked eye.
Find the interactive visualiser by scrolling down, and switch it to "Files in Anna's Archive [md5]". This will highlight the location of the green pixels in grey.
The graph seems to be alright, there are indeed red and (some) green pixels, looks like an issue with your extension unfortunately.
I see green dots and a few lines of green dots. Did you try zooming in?
I am also color blind and the graph is not good.
No idea of were the issue might land, but I can see the difference in colors.
The graphs are very easy to read, albeit depend on your ability to distinguish between red and green.
Can you change the green channel to blue to better view it?
Anyone else seeing this?
"This server couldn't prove that it's annas-archive.org; its security certificate is from *.hs.llnwd.net. This may be caused by a misconfiguration or an attacker intercepting your connection."
Yes. A DNS request for annas-archive.org to my ISP (EE in the UK) returns an address for www.ukispcourtorders.co.uk, which also gives a security warning. If I click through the warning on either site I get an HTTP 400 error.
According to Wikipedia, www.ukispcourtorders.co.uk used to list the blocked domains and the court orders responsible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_th...
No, sounds like you are being mitm for them. Though the domain appears like a legitimate CDN.
Same for me
Kind of hard to tell what corresponds to what in these graphs, maybe if someone could point out Bookland (i.e. 978), it would be a bit easier to orient oneself?
Making it easier to visualise is the whole point of the bounty announced by this post.
> Each pixel represents 2,500 ISBNs. If we have a file for an ISBN, we make that pixel more green.
What do you mean by "more green"? I don't see any shaded green.
And I presume the black pixels are unregistered ISBNs?
If you look closely there are definitely some brownish pixels and some dim greens.
is it illegal to download and use their isbn file? like what is wrong with having that information?
I don't think this page, which links to libgen and sci-hub, is that concerned about copyright.
annoying non-answer to my question. i already know all about anna's archive. i'm asking if a person can download these isbns and use them to make data visualizations without fear of breaking a law? https://software.annas-archive.li/AnnaArchivist/annas-archiv...
Sorry, I misunderstood your question.
They explicitly provide that data for you to do as you wish. They are in a grey area, not you. You can download it no problem.
is there legal precedent for that?
already asked LLMs so please don't copy/paste an LLM response.
Hm, I got:
"...
European sanctions
The Council of Europe has decided that the websites of RT (formerly Russia Today) and Sputnik News may no longer be transmitted. The website you are trying to visit falls under this European sanction.
..."
I think the website is censored at DNS level but they chose the wrong error page.
In Italy it just errors out with a NS_ERROR_CONNECTION_REFUSED.
You're just cleared up a minor mystery I never bothered to investigate (BT, UK). Thanks.
Flipping DNS to 8.8.4.4 fixed it for now but I really need to move this connection to A&A.
Works fine here from a European IP.
It's blocked at least in the Netherlands. Weirdly it mentions it being part of the sanctions against Russia, while from a cursory search I only found a judge ordering the site to be blocked because of copyright issues (thanks Brein). They probably just show the wrong error page?
Must be ISP specific, I'm also in NL and can access it fine.
I'm also in NL. Ziggo's DNS server blocks it:
213.46.185.10 serves a generic page mentioning Russia Today and the Pirate Bay. Not sure which one applies here.> CNAME unavailable.for.legal.reasons.
Not really standards compliant, but an interesting use of DNS.
Same for KPN:
http://195.121.82.125/
Would Tweak have blocked this? Most households in the Netherlands currently have the choice of Ziggo, KPN, and Odido. Long live VPNs…
It's blocked by my corporate networking filter for me, in the category "Illegal downloads". So the Russian sanctions message is probably incorrect indeed.
Switch DNS to like 1.1.1.1 (Cloudflare) or 8.8.8.8 (Google)
[dead]
[flagged]
Some people in the archiving / 'data hoarding' community feel it's simpler to just back up everything. This attitude is particularly prevalent in the communities that deal with data other people have already digitised.
If you're paying $100 per book for someone to visit a major library, get the book out, scan it, check the OCR? Then you'd probably be selective, to get the most out of a limited budget.
But if you're grabbing epubs and pdfs, and a book only needs $0.002 of space on a hard drive somewhere? Grabbing the useless 41% is probably cheaper and easier than exercising editorial control.
[flagged]
The problem with such judgment is that they are subjective and subject to biases that change over time. Almost every scrap of information from ancient civilizations is considered priceless at this point because so few is left of it. Anything from obscene graffiti, shopping lists, personal messages, etc. All of it.
Many autocratic regimes editorialize and censure all forms of publications. But even in the US, which is nominally still a democracy you now have states like Florida forcing changes to literature works and banning books entirely for religious and ideological reasons. And this is not just a right wing thing. There have been a few publishers that took it upon themselves to editorialize literature from the 19th and 20th century to get rid of some things that are now considered sexist, racist or otherwise offensive. The whole cancel culture is not just about canceling people, but about limiting access to their work as well.
I was at a Christmas market in Berlin a few weeks ago near the Opera. There's a nice little monument there for the book burning that happened in the 1930s. Anything that was vaguely intellectual or Jewish in origin was burned right there during the Kristallnacht. Nice place for a Christmas market and a grim reminder that those calling for things to be deleted/cancelled aren't necessarily very nice people. And of course Hitler himself got cancelled. Possession or distribution of his books is still not allowed in Germany.
Anyway, imagine somebody in 5000 years finding their way to some archive of hacker news or some reddit thread might look differently at the value of some of the comments than the average moderator.
> Possession or distribution of his books is still not allowed in Germany.
AFAIK this has never been true in Germany (for the book Mein Kampf at least). AFAIK the German state of Bavaria inherited Hitler's copyright on the book, and did not republish it. This means that no one was allowed to print it for copyright reasons, but you could still own or trade existing copies of the book. After 2015, 70 years after Hitler's death, the book entered the public domain. Looking into Wikipedia, uncommented reprints have been forbidden: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mein_Kampf&oldid=..., which I didn't know before.
It seems you are correct and I was only half right. Lets just say that quoting the man in public is still likely to get you in trouble. More than a few AFD politicians are finding that out the hard way.
And rightfully so. Germany has a peculiar history in this regard, and that implies a federal obligation to account for it.
All action is "subjective and subject to biases that change over time". This would then imply I could never take any action, because it's just subjective and biased. Maybe that's an exaggeration of your position, but you do seem to be suggesting inaction or the impossibility of judgement. I reject this position 100%.
I would suggest that judgement is a critical part of our civilization, and it's judgement that says those bits of obscene graffiti in Pompeii that makes it so.
Or else they could say "well, we can't claim ancient cave art is priceless, because we're biased and our biases will change over time. Maybe in a thousand years we'll discover that ancient cave art is worthless, so we'll do nothing".
In fact you have judged my opinions and shared your judgement with me. Good job!
Your characterization of regimes as autocratic is judgmental, biased and will change over time. But right now that's your judgement and I applaud it, even if I disagree.
Gosh, book burning. Not backing up a romance novel or cookbook is definitely analogous to book burning, but I'll play along.
It was a symbolic act to show a rejection of ideas, not an attempt to eradicate the books, much in the same way Gandhi encouraged the burning of foreign made clothing and products. He wasn't going to rid the world of British cloth nor were the Germans going to rid the world of non-German ideas.
So yeah, when all the badly written cook books, romance novels, and children's books are in a huge bonfire, you can blame me, personally.
> All action is "subjective and subject to biases that change over time".
This is poppycock. Backing up all books -- the very action discussed by the person you're answering -- is by definition neither subjective nor subject to biases.
> This would then imply I could never take any action, because it's just subjective and biased.
And even if the first quoted claim were true, this, too, clearly isn't. Nowhere does the comment you're answering imply that the bias or subjective rationale of an action should, ipso facto, discourage a person from taking it.
Your comment is replete with similar reasoning, so warped that it's difficult to characterize as anything other than in bad faith. Indeed, this is the snottiest, rudest, least constructive comment I've seen on HN in quite some time -- excepting a couple of my snotty remarks on language or the quality of someone's writing.
I have no idea what response you expect, but the only one you deserve, I think, is one that just points out your dismissiveness, sarcasm, and breathtaking contempt. What an awful way to move through the world, let alone through HN.
Thanks for this. I wasn't going to feed the trolls; but you are not wrong
> this is the snottiest, rudest, least constructive comment I've seen on HN in quite some time
I wish ;-). I see a lot worse here regularly. But it's certainly not nice behavior. Luckily, I have a thick skin.
I wouldn't be surprised if they're an LLM-powered bot.
I don't think you're doing it on purpose, but this is Holocaust denial. The Nazis did destroy all extant copies of several works – for example, research of the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft. (Edit: Some Judaica were sent to Prague instead of being destroyed – though apparently Hitler's planned Judaism Museum is an urban myth.) They absolutely were trying to utterly destroy – not just symbolically reject – vast swathes of culture.
Please don't make stuff up about the Holocaust. It's the sort of mistake you shouldn't make even once.
Sturgeon's Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law) states "90% of everything is crap" so you're not too far off.
This thread should've really summoned Jason Scott, I remember him causally mentioning that he has a backup of every single 4chan post ever made (99% crap in that case, but probably invaluable for future generations of sociologists/historians who want to piece back together where it all went wrong).
Everyone's 41% is different. Long tail, innit.
Gosh.
You mention the example of romance novels above.
There's a schlocky Victorian pulp novel that's of no use to anyone - except that it happens to contain a fantastically detailed description of an abandoned saltings in my hometown that nobody ever thought to record in any way. For me, those two paragraphs are gold.
If the novel hadn't been digitised as part of Google's Books Archive Project, I wouldn't have been able to find those two paragraphs. Digitisation not only creates backups, it enables completely new ways of interacting with those texts (eg Google's Ngram Viewer).
Well I guess your one valuable paragraph that matters only to you justifies backing up millions (billions?) of human and soon to be AI generated books, because someone, somewhere, at some time will find a line or two valuable. Maybe.
I retract my position, let's back up everything!
I think that's the case. IIRC The British Library has copies of all published material in the UK, including flyers and such.
What seems banal and useless to you, might be extremely important for future historians, and to be honest, books are pretty compressible and storage is cheap.
I think its a law in almost all nations in fact that forces publishers to sent a copy of everything they publish to a national archive like that (the US equivalent is the Library of Congress). If you bring up the topic of preservation, most people won't understand why, or even be opposed to the idea, goes to show that sometimes its a good idea to ignore the ignorant public.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_deposit
>$10,000 bounty
>There is much to explore here, so we’re announcing a bounty for improving the visualization above. Unlike most of our bounties, this one is time-bound. You have to submit your open source code by 2025-01-31 (23:59 UTC).
>The best submission will get $6,000, second place is $3,000, and third place is $1,000.
>All bounties will be awarded using Monero (XMR).
? Why are they using crypto, and, weirdly enough, specifically the crypto people use for buying drugs, to award this?
Is it some kind of scam?
Because the efforts of Anna's Archive are unfortunately currently very much illegal, and XMR is one of the few cryptocurrencies that can actually offer some privacy to its users.
I've used XMR before. Just surprised seeing it to pay for legitimate & harmless visualization work.
I see, that makes sense
So what you’re saying is you think XMR is just for buying drugs, and you’re also saying you’ve used XMR before.
Hmmmmmm
/s
Because it is a book download site, which is illegal in every country that has copyright, and revealing one's identity with a bank transfer would be a stupid way to go to jail.
They use monero because what they are doing (copyright infringement) will get you in to big trouble anywhere in the western world. Without cryptocurrencies much of the modern large scale archival efforts wouldn't be possible, or at the very least would significantly increase risks for the people participating in it. For me this alone is a good enough reason to admit that there are valid reasons for existence of privacy coins.
The harm they may cause in the short term via tax avoidance or being used to buy drugs is minimal, but the possibility that because of them archivists are able to fund servers for data that future historians wouldn't have otherwise been able to get their hands on? Priceless.
>Why are they using crypto, and, weirdly enough, specifically the crypto people use for buying drugs, to award this?
You really have to ask why a illegal/grey site is using currency that is build to protect privacy and anonymity?
is this some kind of sarcasm?
[flagged]
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.
No 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.
> 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?
> Reasonable people are objecting to copyright law violation, for the simple reason that it disincentivizes further knowledge creation.
how?
what a bunch of nonsense