It is neither humorous nor strange because that formulation omits authors.

How many authors who write the books in Anna's archive are happy about it?

I personally am pro Anna's archive (and sci-hub, etc) because I believe it benefits society to have better-read citizens. That said, I have some misgivings, because under our current system, there are issues with law and remuneration.

IMO, Scihub and the ebook parts of AA should be considered differently and not conflated.

In particular, Scihub is in opposition to the parasitic international publishers who dominate and control scientific publishing for profit, mostly on the backs of science generated by academia and other not-in-it-for-the-profit folks.

In contrast, downloading ebooks may, in some cases, lead to individual authors being hit in the pocket, in a profession it’s already hard to make a living from.

(I wish we’d figured out a better way to organise book publishing without publishing companies getting in the way and taking their large slice, allowing authors to profit more directly.)

The law only benefits the most popular authors, otherwise it protects publishers primarily.

I know one popular author who doesn't care: Brandon Sanderson. In addition he makes it possible to buy DRM free ebooks from his website.

In his words: “My experience has been that readers want to support things they like … But if they are at a point in their lives where they can’t, then it’s better to let them read the stories they want … and let them support artists when they’re capable of it. So I am a big fan of giving away books for free.”

Source: https://www.jotdown.es/2016/12/brandon-sanderson-i-want-to-s...

I made the assumption everything relates to scientific papers that have been made public or were taxpayer funded.