Comment by neilv
3 days ago
> This software does not endorse unauthorized acquisition of copyrighted content and should be regarded solely as a utility. Users are urged to respect the intellectual property rights of authors and acknowledge the considerable effort invested in document creation.
How sincere is that statement?
I just provide a hammer. Users decide whether they're hitting their own nail or the metal one.
The comparison might be loose, but the problem is similar to releasing a browser. Do you prevent users from accessing websites you think are malicious or illegal? Or do you delegate that responsibility?
I was hesitant about releasing the MCP server as open source software, but I hope (1) it proves useful for others and (2) people understand that the authors of the books they're reading need money to eat, live, and support their families.
> The comparison might be loose, but the problem is similar to releasing a browser. Do you prevent users from accessing websites you think are malicious or illegal? Or do you delegate that responsibility?
I might liken the situation more to releasing a browser and setting thepiratebay as the homepage.
That would imply constantly reminding users of an available action, which isn't the case since the MCP server is just a dormant capability that needs to be triggered.
IMO, you're needlessly taking a defensive stand. It's ok to take a forward looking stand on how access to knowledge should be.
Oh come on. We all know there’s pretty much every novel you’ll find at Barnes&Noble on Anna's Archive as a pirated copy, not just scientific papers. At least be honest; it’s as much a mundane piracy tool as it is a knowledge repository.
3 replies →
Hilariously disingenuous.
As sincere as LLM providers not wanting to get sued for the copyrighted content they used.
I'd bet you won't find a single string containing "acquire copyrighted content arrr!", so pretty sincere. The software doesn't endorse it.
As sincere as the user takes it.