Current Events > archive.org is ripe for extinction

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.npr.org/2023/03/26/1166101459/internet-archive-lawsuit-books-library-publishers
https://time.com/6266147/internet-archive-copyright-infringement-books-lawsuit/

enjoy it while we can
https://archive.org/details/manos_the_hands_of_fate

This result is two months old and only applied to their ill-thought-out program to lend unlimited copies of works to people. There's nothing like a court order to shut down the general archiving stuff.

As humans we seem determined to ruin everything we create out of pure unfiltered greed.

Quezovercoatl posted...

As humans we seem determined to ruin everything we create out of pure unfiltered greed.

Decepticon Logic seems to be endemic "If I can't have it, nobody can!"

This was 3 months ago.

Quezovercoatl posted...

As humans we seem determined to ruin everything we create out of pure unfiltered greed.

Not we. Just the 1% ruling class.

I 100% support digital preservation, but the "online library" seems like a pretty stupid idea the way it was executed.

Doe posted...

This result is two months old and only applied to their ill-thought-out program to lend unlimited copies of works to people. There's nothing like a court order to shut down the general archiving stuff.

It wasn't unlimited copies. They only lent out a number equal to copies they physically owned. Their fuck up was in thinking that having physical rights meant that they were transferable to digital rights.

Tyranthraxus posted...

It wasn't unlimited copies. They only lent out a number equal to copies they physically owned. Their fuck up was in thinking that having physical rights meant that they were transferable to digital rights.

Copyright needs updating.

But the problem there is that exactly the wrong people will likely be the industry experts legislators would consult.

So, I dunno.

Dark_Arbron posted...

Copyright needs updating.

But the problem there is that exactly the wrong people will likely be the industry experts legislators would consult.

So, I dunno.

If I had it my way, corporations wouldn't be allowed to own copyrights or patents.

Strictly speaking the constitution only says "... granting exclusive rights to authors and inventors."

It doesn't say a corporation can be an author. A Song of Ice and Fire's author is listed as George R. R. Martin, not Bantam Books.

Copyright and patent should be identical.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Copyright and patent should be identical.

Nah I disagree. Patents should be compulsory to license. Copyright should be use-it-or-lose-it.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Nah I disagree. Patents should be compulsory to license. Copyright should be use-it-or-lose-it.

What if I see the same for patents?

Questionmarktarius posted...

What if I see the same for patents?

Then I will disagree. Inventors may not always have the means to produce from their parents but they should still be allowed to profit from them.

For example, the guy who invented the mason jar was not able to actually make any jars. He just didn't have the money to begin a manufacturing pipeline. A use-it-or-lose-it system for patents means invention becomes a benefit exclusively for the wealthy.

Archive.org should have expected this fight based on their mission statement.

Librarians have already been fighting a silent war with big-time publishers for over a century to keep their books in public libraries. I don't know what made archive.org think they were exempt.

Dark_Arbron posted...

Copyright needs updating.

But the problem there is that exactly the wrong people will likely be the industry experts legislators would consult.

So, I dunno.

Digital copyright is an absurd concept. It's an attempt to artificially induce scarcity in a medium without it. That's how greedy capitalism is

Doe posted...

Digital copyright is an absurd concept. It's an attempt to artificially induce scarcity in a medium without it. That's how greedy capitalism is

So, let's say I write a book and release it on Kindle (a digital platform) today. You are saying you believe that someone else should be able to copy my book verbatim and re-release it also on Kindle (for money) five minutes later without any repercussions?

Tyranthraxus posted...

Then I will disagree. Inventors may not always have the means to produce from their parents but they should still be allowed to profit from them.

I watched a video about this a while ago that I remember making a convincing case against this. lemme see if I can find it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnnYCJNhw7w

WTGHookshot posted...

So, let's say I write a book and release it on Kindle (a digital platform) today. You are saying you believe that someone else should be able to copy my book verbatim and re-release it also on Kindle (for money) five minutes later without any repercussions?

You're smuggling a plagiarism dispute into an argument about artificial scarcity.

Doe posted...

You're smuggling a plagiarism dispute into an argument about artificial scarcity.

What do you think copyright is about, at its core (and not the bastardization pressed from greedy companies like Disney)? Plagiarism and the establishment of intellectual property.

PowerfulSageIRL posted...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnnYCJNhw7w

This is the exact opposite of a good case. Using one of the scummiest and legally questionable crowdfunding campaigns of all time, which makes 100% of its money on appeal to FOMO, sunk cost fallacy, and promises that have yet to be delivered for 10 years as an argument that "we should do that for everything" is patently insane. If that's the future he wants, he can keep it.

WTGHookshot posted...

What do you think copyright is about, at its core (and not the bastardization pressed from greedy companies like Disney)? Plagiarism and the establishment of intellectual property.

Plagiarism is distinct from copyright. I can't scribble out Mary Shelley's name from The Modern Prometheus, put my name, and be like "I wrote this" and The Modern Prometheus is public domain.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Plagiarism is distinct from copyright. I can't scribble out Mary Shelley's name from The Modern Prometheus, put my name, and be like "I wrote this" and The Modern Prometheus is public domain.

Plagiarism itself is actually not illegal (at least not in the US). So, you can do exactly as you stated under "plagiarism" laws (as they do not exist... It is only frowned on academically to do so).

However, you doing that won't allow you to get a copyright for it as your own, as the content is already in the public domain.

WTGHookshot posted...

Plagiarism itself is actually not illegal (at least not in the US). So, you can do exactly as you stated under "plagiarism" laws (as they do not exist... It is only frowned on academically to do so).

However, you doing that won't allow you to get a copyright for it as your own, as the content is already in the public domain.

Which is the original issue. Plagiarism has nothing to do with copyright.