|
robot roll call posted:mfw I destroy the last good thing on the internet what are tom green and adam savage so excited about
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 03:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 17:27 |
|
|
i keep reading headlines that make it sound like IA itself is doomed but then the article says they had to take the books down and makes no mention of exorbitant damages (in fact all I've seen is a judge agreeing with my photoshop piracy argument: i was never going to pay $600 for a license so your damages are zero) or legal costs. IA's in house legal dept is no joke. i don't see why this would be a threat to the whole operation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 03:48
|
|
|
Xaris posted:oh yeah archive.is/archive.ph is far better for recent stuff like news articles, but for anything older than a couple of years, IA is the only way to go IA also has a bunch of old movies, games, books, and etc. It really rocks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 04:04
|
|
|
go for a stroll posted:i keep reading headlines that make it sound like IA itself is doomed but then the article says they had to take the books down the precedent is exceptionally bad. "re-hosting copies of blogspot/geocities/reddit sites (COPYRIGHTED BY CONDE NASTE) is illegal" isnt that far off
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 04:09
|
|
|
Durf posted:what are tom green and adam savage so excited about That someone mentioned their name. I hope you're happy
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 04:16
|
|
|
A Bakers Cousin posted:i tried to get a book from the archive that was published like a hundred years ago and it wanted me to have an account or something so i say good an account is free and when they want you to "loan out" a book its because of stupid bullshit publisher restrictions. if you have an account you can upload pretty much anything so i think its good incidentally there's an absolute fuckton of software on there also
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 04:33
|
|
|
Xaris posted:the precedent is exceptionally bad. "re-hosting copies of blogspot/geocities/reddit sites (COPYRIGHTED BY CONDE NASTE) is illegal" isnt that far off IA has beaten these like 1000 times now. Hosting stuff that was never on the public internet is a pretty big jump from the claims they've fought in the past. I've only seen them do it to academic journal publishers up close but Elsevier's lawyers are monsters and they've been dumpstered repeatedly. Granted some chudge could always overturn whatever on a whim. e: I don't know how they get away with games and bootleg concert recordings and such, they may lose a lot of that. They might be wrong on the law and just have better lawyers. It's not a shoestring operation. go for a stroll has issued a correction as of 04:42 on Mar 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 04:39
|
|
|
what is "unauthorized lending"? i wasn't aware you had to be an accredited library to hand books to people on a temporary basis. they gonna go after a 6th grader who lends a goosebumps book to a friend next?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 04:55
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:what is "unauthorized lending"? i wasn't aware you had to be an accredited library to hand books to people on a temporary basis. they gonna go after a 6th grader who lends a goosebumps book to a friend next? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 05:02
|
|
|
ah. capitalism. right
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 05:07
|
|
|
That notice is total nonsense though. The rights of copyright don't extend to controlling the physical objects in which the work is embodied (assuming they are legally produced reproductions). You are not reproducing a work by selling the book or giving it away. Lots of places make this explicit with something called the "first sale doctrine", which means you can use, sell, dispose of etc your copy of a book without going to the copyright holder and asking for permission--their right to distribute/publish a given reproduction is used up after the first sale. Bringing it back to the authorising lending issue: this doctrine makes no sense for digital copies. If I loan you a digital copy of a book I own, I'm not really lending you anything--I'm just reproducing the original work (or creating a derivative work in the case of a scan of a book) and sending the copy to you. An online library purporting to loan out books this way could therefore be infringing on the copyright. I guess you could genuinely lend it by lending the drive the book is on... but no-one is doing that so who cares. What you actually have are various licencing schemes and DRM etc governing how digital copies are loaned out. Libraries are allowed to reproduce entire works in some circumstances (like if a first hand reproduction from the copyright holder or whoever isn't commercially available) but it seems like a huuuuuge stretch to argue that for some of the stuff on the internet archive. Good on them for trying though
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 07:09
|
|
|
I keep seeing people go Well Actually at saying Chuck Wendig et al weren't actually involved in these lawsuits so therefore we shouldn't be attacking them for this result And it's irritating because these are 100% the same people who decided that Andrew Tate posting a pizza box video was what got him picked up by the cops, despite evidence to the contrary, just because it was funnier to think of it that way
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 16:59
|
|
|
Buck Turgidson posted:That notice is total nonsense though. The rights of copyright don't extend to controlling the physical objects in which the work is embodied (assuming they are legally produced reproductions). You are not reproducing a work by selling the book or giving it away. Lots of places make this explicit with something called the "first sale doctrine", which means you can use, sell, dispose of etc your copy of a book without going to the copyright holder and asking for permission--their right to distribute/publish a given reproduction is used up after the first sale. IA tries to replicate the dynamics of library lending by tying every digital copy to a physical copy. if they only own one copy of the book, only one person can access the digital version, while if they own 50 then 50 people can access it simultaneously. it seems as sensible a way as any to thread the needle of "digital things fundamentally don't work like physical objects" and "capitalism wants digital things to work like physical objects" and, insane "no gift" licenses in some books aside, i still am not quite sure what separates IA's library from a university library such that the judge could acknowledge that they were "lending" but call it "unauthorized" as though private libraries have ever been subject to central accreditation to become "authorized lenders" Jazerus has issued a correction as of 17:06 on Mar 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 17:03
|
|
|
Xaris posted:a bunch of state/fed government sites with really useful resources that broke in 2016 (thanks obama for destroying USGS) all the .gov websites save for a handful have been updating their websites to be 1/3 as dense and remove RSS and replace it with 3-4 different socials. it sucks so much.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 17:30
|
|
|
AnimeIsTrash posted:dont post itt are you going to once again close a thread just because I posted in it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 17:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 17:27 |
|
|
aids
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 17:49
|
|