@StackSats.IO I understand the arguments from all sides but with music, movies and books creators are spending huge amounts of money to create art that should be protected or monetizable - at minimum so creators can continue to make more art. This is the first I knew about Anna's Archive. It appears you have to be a member of Anna's Archive to access the copied content they "preserve" under the guise of a non-profit freedom hub. But I did not distribute my music to Anna's Archive or give them permission to copy it freely. So it's not emotional, it is theft. I want the music I create to be available to anyone who wants to hear it but I have to find a way to be compensated for the $12,000 US dollars I spent to make the record(s). If art is not monetizable then we will all be relegated to AI Slop for the rest of eternity. I don't know about you but I'd still love to discover and follow and support my favorite artists in the world. The issue is that we have never had a way to do that (support with money) across borders and electronically. That is what Bitcoin Fixes. It's a beautiful solution to a100 year old problem. My hope is that we see people build solutions that support the creation of art, not kill it.
Login to reply
Replies (1)
> “should be protected or monetizable”
It IS protected by copyright law - that’s not the issue.
The problem is that copyright law applies within legal jurisdictions. US law doesn’t apply to someone like me in Vietnam, or to servers in jurisdictions that don’t recognise American IP law, yet we’re all connected to the same internet. The bits can be copied regardless of what any law says “should” happen. You can say “should” as much as you like, but unless you’re willing to work with reality as it is, you’re not going to make progress.
Anna’s Archive doesn’t require membership, their content is freely accessible.
And Anna’s Archive doesn’t need your permission to copy bits any more than I do. The entire internet functions through copying. When Spotify plays your song, it copies bits to the listener’s device. This note that I wrote exists as a copy on your device - can I gatekeep you from reading it? No.
This is why calling it “theft” is nonsense. For something to be theft, you have to be deprived of your property. If I take your car then you can’t drive it - ergo you have been deprived.
In the digital realm you still have your copies, they still work exactly the same, your property is unviolated. What’s on my device is my property; what’s on yours is yours. The same bits can exist in both places simultaneously. This is fundamentally different from physical goods.
You can make whatever moral arguments you’d like, but this debate has been running for 30+ years and reality keeps smashing creators who go against it. You’re not going to change how computers and the internet work.
I believe nothing will improve for artists in the digital age until they stop fighting gravity and learn to harness it. Arctic Monkeys built their career through viral sharing on MySpace. Saifedean actively encourages people to pirate “The Bitcoin Standard” and he’s still sold over a million copies. It can be done.
Because you make nothing from people who aren’t fans. The only way to get fans is exposure. Someone who pirates your album and loves it might buy merch, come to shows, tell friends, or simply pay you directly once Bitcoin makes that frictionless. Someone who never hears your music because it’s locked behind a paywall will give you nothing, forever.
It’s far better to capture 1% of a million listeners than 100% of a thousand. You’re never going to gatekeep your way to a million fans but widespread free distribution might get you there.
If you’d like to understand this topic instead of just emotionally reacting to your situations, I’d recommend Stephan Kinsella’s book on the subject:
https://annas-archive.org/md5/b8e5915a387336529c79a31baf4b5a02