> 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.
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.
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.
Phrasing "here's a way to pirate novels using an LLM" as "I'm on a mission to grant everyone access to the wealth of humanity's knowledge" is just disingenuous. Sure do novels count as knowledge, but there's a moral difference between making scientific content available to researchers for use in research versus saving money by pirating books.
How sincere is that statement?