"Anna's Archive" blocked following publishers' complaint
Italian courts have ordered ISPs to block access to Anna’s Archive, a large “shadow library” that mirrors Sci‑Hub, LibGen and other sources of pirated books and research papers, prompting debate over both the effectiveness and legitimacy of such DNS-based censorship. Commenters note that technical users can easily bypass the blocks via alternative DNS or Tor, framing enforcement as a whack‑a‑mole game that mainly hinders less savvy users. The case is used to question current copyright regimes, the role of academic publishers, and how stricter enforcement may collide with goals like broad access to publicly funded research and competitive AI training data.
Scope of the Block
- Italian court ordered ISPs to DNS-block Anna’s Archive (and similar sites like Libgen), with users seeing a government notice instead.
- Only some domains/mirrors are affected; others (e.g., different TLDs) still work.
- Many expect similar actions in other countries, as has happened with torrent sites.
Technical Evasion and DNS Issues
- Users in Italy report that switching to third‑party DNS (Google, Cloudflare) restores access; ISP DNS is what’s blocked.
- Some note ISPs can and do redirect all port 53 traffic, making manual DNS settings ineffective unless using DNS-over-HTTPS/TLS.
- Others argue such packet-level interception is relatively costly and uncommon for mere copyright compliance.
- Discussion covers running a local recursive resolver, DNSSEC, and how HTTPS certificates are (or are not) obtained when DNS is hijacked.
- There’s debate on the centralization risks of DoH and on whether ISPs could game browser “canary domains.”
Hosting, Anonymity, and Torrents
- Cloudflare cooperation reportedly exposed at least one Ukrainian hosting provider; Anna’s infrastructure uses multiple DNS names and providers to limit damage.
- Initial torrent seeding from identifiable IPs is a deanonymization risk; Tor-based seeding is technically possible but discouraged for privacy and network-load reasons.
Copyright, Publishers, and Policy
- Many commenters see the blocks as a futile “whack‑a‑mole” that mostly inconveniences non‑technical users.
- Strong criticism that modern copyright is overlong, benefits corporations over creators, and blocks access to knowledge, especially for publicly funded research.
- Others note that even “failed” enforcement can be used politically to justify stronger laws, citing music industry precedents (DMCA, ISP obligations, site blocking, disconnections, copyright-troll tactics).
- Some argue that from publishers’ perspective copyright is “working” if it keeps revenue streams from platforms and licensees.
Access to Knowledge and Libraries
- Several defend shadow libraries for providing access to technical, historical, niche, out‑of‑print, and paywalled materials (including expensive standards).
- Traditional journals are criticized for extracting profit while peer review is unpaid and research is often publicly funded; alternatives for trust/curation are seen as underdeveloped.
AI and Copyright Regimes
- There is debate about whether countries with looser rules on training data (Japan mentioned) will gain an AI advantage.
- Claims that Japan is becoming an “AI haven” are questioned; cited policy is described as tentative and not yet full law.
User Tools and Reading Experience
- Some praise Anna’s Archive for easy EPUB access; others discuss frustrations with Apple Books (offloading, syncing, limited formatting control).
- E‑ink readers and even e‑ink PC monitors are suggested as better reading devices.
Preservation and Seeding
- A participant associated with the project stresses the importance of seeding Anna’s Archive torrents.
- Notes that while parts of the collection (Sci‑Hub, Libgen) are well seeded, roughly 150 TB reportedly have fewer than four seeders, making long‑term preservation fragile.