Stealing Minds and Destroying Morale: LibGen, Meta, and AI

Last week I learned that all four of the books for which I am sole author, or co-author, were illegally pirated by Library Genesis (LibGen). The LibGen database was in turn scraped illegally by Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and Threads, for the purpose of training the company’s AI (Artificial Intelligence) program in use of the English language. How many literary works were compromised? What recourse do authors have? Why is this a problem? Go make the popcorn and brace yourself.

I am not alone in having my works taken illegally, without notification, without my consent, and certainly without compensation. An estimated 7.5 million books, articles, and scientific papers are on the LibGen website. Nearly all of my writer and science friends, and even their parents, are victims of this intellectual property theft. If you have ever had anything published, you need to search LibGen.

Thankfully, The Atlantic magazine provides a search tool, for free, in the top left corner of the page in this hyperlink. Use it. Search for the names of people you know, and notify them if their works appear.

If you are not already a member of the Authors Guild, I strongly recommend becoming one. This particular case is high profile, but only the tip of the iceberg. There are many other piracy platforms that provide free access to literature without compensating the author or the publisher. Authors Guild has a strong legal team that fights for the rights of authors against copyright violations, against book bans, against publishing scams aimed at newbie authors, and many other issues including slow payment and non-payment by publishers.

You may hear from various sources that LibGen is actually the “good guy,” and it is only Meta that is at fault in this case. Publishing is a complicated industry, its landscape changing almost daily. One argument I saw praising LibGen involves the fact it “archives” ebooks, which became even more important after February 26, 2025. On that date, Amazon made it impossible to download ebooks from Kindle to your computer, or any device over which you have control of the files. The fact that you can fetch them from LibGen does not let that pirating company off the hook, it simply punishes Amazon and the authors of those ebooks.

Most publishers of scientific journals truly are evil, though. First, the author pays exorbitant page fees to have their work published. Then, the publisher puts those papers behind a paywall that essentially shuts off access to the general public. I confess that without the “services” provided by the kin of LibGen, I would have extraordinary difficulty conducting research for my own books. I simply do not have the time to contact the author of a given paper, provided they are still alive, with a public email address, and ask them if they can provide me with a PDF of the paper I am seeking. God forbid that capitalism could keep its dirty fingers out of the pie of collective knowledge we should all be able to access, and that authors should not have to pay to publish.

Back to the current issue for a moment. What can authors do? Class action lawsuits against Meta are in the works, and I will likely let Authors Guild and the law firms do the heavy lifting on the behalf of us authors. AG also has a ”What Authors Need to Know” page listing additional courses of action, including a template for a letter you can send to Z-man, the CEO of Meta, to express your outrage, and/or concern. If your life can function without Facebook, Instagram, and Threads, you may want to consider alternative social media like Bluesky.

Why is all of this a problem? Authors and writers are already compensated precious little for what we produce. Many of us never see royalties, and “advances” ahead of publishing are becoming more of a rarity all the time. This devaluation of our skill set, imagination, and creativity is something we already suffer, without the added attacks of piracy and plagiarism, and the indignity of being replaced by AI tools.

I came across a YouTube video above, by Del Stone, Jr., that captures perfectly my own sentiments. The view that intellectual property is not worthy of respect, but instead something to be “harvested” and used against creative people in the future is demoralizing AF, as the kids these days would say. What these corporations are doing is robbing people like me of the desire to continue creating content, and stimulating critical thinking by our readers.

You wonder why I rail against capitalism over on my Sense of Misplaced blog? Now you have some idea. I can no longer promise new posts here, or there. What is the point? Why should I continue to provide free fodder for AI machines? I’m open to persuasion, but for now I may stick to putting out a book every so often, and doing the odd article for the few editors I treasure. Thank you, and good luck.

Death Into Art

There are countless artists who render insects and other animals with traditional media like pen, ink, pencil, paints, clay, wood, and other materials, creating a realistic representation of the organism itself or, alternatively, a whimsical or inspired interpretation thereof. What, then, do we make of art that uses deceased life forms as the medium?

Detail of Jennifer Angus' In the Midnight Garden, 2015© Smithsonian Magazine

Your appreciation, or disapproval, may hinge on one or more facets of personal taste or ethics. Have we given collective thought to the implications of such works? Maybe we should. People tend to place animals into one or more general categories. One category is reserved for other species that benefit people directly, and usually economically, though often framed as pets or companions for which we like to think there is no "price" we could assign to those individual animals.

Another group we call "pests," or vermin, enemy species that cost us economically in terms of damage to property, pets, livestock, or livelihoods. They may even cost us our lives if they are species that can prey upon us. Those are the two major categories, though most species fall through the chasm between the two, ignored or unknown to most members of Homo sapiens

Ideally, when it comes to animals, art is a way to enhance the appreciation of other species, encourage us to think differently about them, inform us as to their unique behaviors and place in the bigger picture (outside the frame, if you will), and inspire us to learn more once we leave the gallery. I personally know dozens of artists who share that intent, and who execute amazing works. I also know artists for whom I assume that is the foundation of their works, but who use insects themselves as raw material for their works. This begins to make me feel uncomfortable.

© Christopher Marley

The overwhelming message I receive from artwork composed of dead insects or their body parts is that the creature itself is not a complete expression of beauty unless it is modified by human hands into something "greater." I am quite certain this thought never crosses the mind of the artist, and that is understandable. I might even go so far as to say it is human nature to have the desire to "improve" other objects, other species. Look at every domesticated animal, every plant cultivar.

The second ethical aspect of turning deceased animals into art has to do with sourcing. Where did the specimens come from? The acclaimed artist Damien Hirst is currently creating art from dead butterflies, carefully removing the wings and applying them to boards in colorful patterns. He obtains specimens by purchasing old collections. Re-using and repurposing, so what is so bad about that? Nothing, if the collections have no scientific value, but a travesty if the specimens had location data with them. They belong in museums in that event. Other artists use "farmed" specimens bred in captivity so there is no detriment to wild populations.

An absolute purist would argue that even the best sourcing of specimens is still taking away from the carbon and nutrient cycles that other organisms benefit from. Hirst and other artists might consider simply putting out dead insects and letting carpet beetles and booklice reduce them to powder that can then be used to create more art. What an installation that would be, to bring awareness to the natural process of decay.

Dermestid beetle damage© deanslab.org

The final insult, and I would welcome a better word, is that the artist employing organisms or their parts makes money from the exploitation of nature's works. Artists might consider donating at least a percentage of income to wildlife conservation organizations for the protection of the living versions of the dead ones they use in their works. Maybe, like Christopher Marley, they do and it is simply not widespread public knowledge.

Artists have the power to change our minds, our attitudes, and our behaviors, but it would be nice to see more respectful methods in the madness. More murals. Huge insect images like the ones rendered by Portugese artist Sergio Odeith. Spectacular glassworks like those of Rafael Glass. The real creative challenge, then, is finding new ways to exhalt nature without exploiting her. It can be done. I have faith that way.