I love this newsletter generally, even in weeks where little resonates with me. The celebration of tools, sites and products, from the quirky to the practical, often from unsung creators, is a Sunday treat. But promoting Anna’s Archive and knowingly contributing to IP infringement, which hurts small authors as well as corporations, feels off. So does the personal rationalisation (“I own the physical copy anyway”) which is a) dubious and b) not going to be the use case for many users.
Did you really just promote a site that breaches copyright laws? Regardless of your stated “fair” use- which really isn’t as each form of access requires payment to the rightful owner or provider.
Just adding my voice to the chorus. You shouldn’t be promoting a site that violates copyright laws. It’s bad enough with AI scraping everyone’s IP. Don’t be part of the problem.
Hi Kevin—I’ve just downloaded all your books from Anna’s Archive. Guess you won’t be getting a penny from me. I’m not going to download anyone else’s books though—much as I love Recomendo, I find your unreflective promotion of the site somewhat abhorrent.
Don't worry! As a published author who makes part of his living from selling books I can assure you that Anna's Archive has far less negative impact on author earnings than does the public libraries, which allow people who did not buy your book to read it with ease.
I'm genuinely a fan for all kinds of reasons, but this, again, feels off to me:
1) libraries are long considered to be a public good and they pay for books (one can argue if it's enough, what's shared with authors etc., but it is something) and have regulated copy distribution systems. Data suggests libraries spend over $1 billion on books in the US annually. And anecdotally a long waitlist for an ebook may steer some people to a purchased copy. It's fair to say libraries actively cultivates readers and book culture.
2) An argument that says Anna's Archive isn't as bad as libraries from a royalties POV isn't a reason to let it slide! High profile endorsements like yours will narrow that gap, and totally sidelines the legal and moral issues of copyright theft.
3) Tangental but related, Anna's Archive has reportedly sold ebooks to DeepSeek and other LLMs for training and product development purposes: using other people's IP to sell data to international tech companies who develop these models isn't an entity worth promoting.
Seb, I appreciate the direction you are taking this discussion by bringing in evidence. So let's look at the evidence that readers are going to Anna's Archive to read books instead of a library. There's no evidence so far of that. Anna's is not very good for getting things just to read. The form factor is low. People like me go to Anna's to get digital copies of things that can't find elsewhere, sometimes at any price. (I only get books I have already purchased.) As you say, one of those reasons is to train AIs, which is a fantastic thing. That single copy scanned once now generates all the huge benefits that everyone in the world uses all day, which is a huge public good. I am so happy that my books are included in this training.
I have loved your site and have learned about many interesting things. One thing I do NOT want to know about is anything that undermines the livelihood of writers. How could you in good conscience recommend a site that disregards copyright laws? What are you thinking? It's hard enough to make a living as an artist or writer without having OTHER WRITERS take away the way you are compensated.
I am shocked and disappointed in all of you. You should be ashamed.
I cancelled, too. I always loved this newsletter because it shines a light on small creators and niche concepts and tools, but apparently it's really just designed to make money for Cool Tools LLC... and everyone else can get under the bus. Unbelievable!!
How would you feel if somebody duplicated your substack and distributed it without the classified ads? or worse yet, duplicated it and handed it out free all over the internet, undercutting your paid subscriptions? Or maybe even taking subscription money themselves.
That is what you’re doing to artists today by promoting a piracy site. Way to give the middle finger to all all us.
Seriously CANNOT believe you promote piracy. This inclusion makes me utterly ragey. Consider this my very hundred percent disgusted cancellation of your awful newsletter.
I love this newsletter generally, even in weeks where little resonates with me. The celebration of tools, sites and products, from the quirky to the practical, often from unsung creators, is a Sunday treat. But promoting Anna’s Archive and knowingly contributing to IP infringement, which hurts small authors as well as corporations, feels off. So does the personal rationalisation (“I own the physical copy anyway”) which is a) dubious and b) not going to be the use case for many users.
Did you really just promote a site that breaches copyright laws? Regardless of your stated “fair” use- which really isn’t as each form of access requires payment to the rightful owner or provider.
Just adding my voice to the chorus. You shouldn’t be promoting a site that violates copyright laws. It’s bad enough with AI scraping everyone’s IP. Don’t be part of the problem.
Hi Kevin—I’ve just downloaded all your books from Anna’s Archive. Guess you won’t be getting a penny from me. I’m not going to download anyone else’s books though—much as I love Recomendo, I find your unreflective promotion of the site somewhat abhorrent.
Don't worry! As a published author who makes part of his living from selling books I can assure you that Anna's Archive has far less negative impact on author earnings than does the public libraries, which allow people who did not buy your book to read it with ease.
I'm genuinely a fan for all kinds of reasons, but this, again, feels off to me:
1) libraries are long considered to be a public good and they pay for books (one can argue if it's enough, what's shared with authors etc., but it is something) and have regulated copy distribution systems. Data suggests libraries spend over $1 billion on books in the US annually. And anecdotally a long waitlist for an ebook may steer some people to a purchased copy. It's fair to say libraries actively cultivates readers and book culture.
2) An argument that says Anna's Archive isn't as bad as libraries from a royalties POV isn't a reason to let it slide! High profile endorsements like yours will narrow that gap, and totally sidelines the legal and moral issues of copyright theft.
3) Tangental but related, Anna's Archive has reportedly sold ebooks to DeepSeek and other LLMs for training and product development purposes: using other people's IP to sell data to international tech companies who develop these models isn't an entity worth promoting.
Seb, I appreciate the direction you are taking this discussion by bringing in evidence. So let's look at the evidence that readers are going to Anna's Archive to read books instead of a library. There's no evidence so far of that. Anna's is not very good for getting things just to read. The form factor is low. People like me go to Anna's to get digital copies of things that can't find elsewhere, sometimes at any price. (I only get books I have already purchased.) As you say, one of those reasons is to train AIs, which is a fantastic thing. That single copy scanned once now generates all the huge benefits that everyone in the world uses all day, which is a huge public good. I am so happy that my books are included in this training.
Dear Recomendo, especially KK -
I have loved your site and have learned about many interesting things. One thing I do NOT want to know about is anything that undermines the livelihood of writers. How could you in good conscience recommend a site that disregards copyright laws? What are you thinking? It's hard enough to make a living as an artist or writer without having OTHER WRITERS take away the way you are compensated.
I am shocked and disappointed in all of you. You should be ashamed.
I can’t believe you’re promoting a site that breaches copyright laws and hurts authors everywhere. I’m done with your newsletter.
I cancelled, too. I always loved this newsletter because it shines a light on small creators and niche concepts and tools, but apparently it's really just designed to make money for Cool Tools LLC... and everyone else can get under the bus. Unbelievable!!
How would you feel if somebody duplicated your substack and distributed it without the classified ads? or worse yet, duplicated it and handed it out free all over the internet, undercutting your paid subscriptions? Or maybe even taking subscription money themselves.
That is what you’re doing to artists today by promoting a piracy site. Way to give the middle finger to all all us.
Seriously CANNOT believe you promote piracy. This inclusion makes me utterly ragey. Consider this my very hundred percent disgusted cancellation of your awful newsletter.
Seems like everybody is totally fine with Amazon Kindle hurting writers. You can also scan books yourself, which is - then - also wrong?
THANKS for the Android item!!