6 ms·
Many many authors publish work freely, now more than ever. Without monetary reward. Here's a tiny tip of the massive iceberg https://independentbookreview.com/
by r0s 2y ago
Many many authors publish work freely, now more than ever. Without monetary reward.
Here's a tiny tip of the massive iceberg https://independentbookreview.com/2020/07/30/10-free-literary-magazines/ https://independentbookreview.com/2020/07/30/10-free-literar...
- bilbo0s 2y agoI think the point the commenter was making is, why not just archive those books in that case? Just ignore the books with authors that have released the works for monetary gain. I don't know whether or not such an archive is at all attractive to anyone? But maybe over time it might start to move the needle?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- MattGaiser 2y agoEvidently not enough for libraries to abandon books from publishers. If they had the selection and quality people were seeking, people wouldn’t be arguing to kill copyright but rather just pointing people to free equivalents. The Internet Archive would just distribute those alternatives. When a free equivalent does exist, that is what happens. Nobody is demanding legislation to force Oracle to lower database licence prices. We just use Postgres.
- slothtrop 2y agoMany is not a number.
- r0s 2y agoIs any word a number?
- slothtrop 2y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numeral_(linguistics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numeral_(linguistics) I'm not sure what your point was, but mine is that it doesn't necessarily represent a significant amount.
- r0s 2y agoOh, I thought you were making a non-sequitur semantic context shift, my mistake.
- djbusby 2y agoFour is pretty good. Same count as it is (in English). I think it's neat.
- dunham 2y agoMeanwhile the publishing houses (John Wiley & Sons) are putting out LLM generated garbage: https://zbmath.org/1532.68005 https://zbmath.org/1532.68005
- bandrami 2y agoWhich, ironically, cannot itself be copyrighted...