xuxebikoInternet Archive's digital library has been found in breach of copyright. The decision has some important implications
The legal ruling against the Internet Archive has come down in favour of the rights of authors.
candyman337I think we need to start caring about how laws affect the preservation of data, this is ridiculous.
UbermeistersI wonder if you would feel that way if you were one of the artists whose copyrighted media was distributed illegally?
You realize this is about books right? This is about free and easy access to books. Like a digital library. Don’t be ridiculous.
And what do you do for a living? I would like to access that free as well…
I’m a dev, and on occasion I like to contribute to FOSS apps. That backfired on you didn’t it?
Yeah, you have completely changed my mind here. I am uploading all my work to github and all my pics as we speak for everyone to use as they please. Give me a break. Are you really that childish in person, or is it just the screen and keyboard giving you this false machismo?
I’m not being childish, you’re being ridiculous. This is a library, this is a concept that already exists. Your thinking too profit oriented, not everything has to be for profit. This is so that people have access to these things now and for generations to come. Copyright laws compromising the internet archive will mean loss of data over the next few generations. There is already so much lost media from the internet era, and so little is being done about it, aside from the awesome efforts of the internet archive.
This isn’t about profits this is about preserving data from our era.
Tocanoyou are taking this to the extreme without considering what you are saying. it is true that authors should be rewarded for their efforts to produce a piece of writting or art. however, sometimes some authors and publishers choose to hide this content, which may be useful when accessible by the larger community. imagine if certain inventions were not made public by their inventors. the entire race would still be living in the stone age.
This is actually happening with certain things that are patented or prohibitively expensive. I.E. insulin. A LOT of more efficient eco-friendly tech has just not been adopted because it’s patented and it wouldn’t be cost effective for companies to switch in our profit driven capitalist hellscape.
I’m also a dev. I do upload my work other than my day job work since it’s my employers copyright not mine. You can check out my GitHub which is the same as my username here.
redcalciumYou might not familiar with how the internet archive does the book lending. The book is actually drm-protected and can only be opened with adobe software, which will expire in just a few days, rendering the file useless. What the internet archive did was simply allowing more people to borrow the same book during pandemic instead of only allowing one person at a time. The lent books still expire after a few days. It’s not like the internet archive was suddenly turn into LibGen and distributing unlocked pdf to anyone.
I write software. I am legally bound to not release source code for the things I do for work.
However all of the software that I write that is not required to be closed source, is not.
I always make sure all my work are freely avaliable to everyone, even when I have to pay to do so.
Props
Same here. Every project I have ever worked on is available on github. Even my job open sources its tools.
I just looked. Your python “age guesser” repo and “name guesser” repo are top notch. Your unfinished “street address guesser” looks promising. The internet is thrilled for these three contributions
Fucking hero
The problem is that copyright last way to fucking long and they keep extending it.
Well the average career is 30 years. So you think that if I was to start a photography business that at the end of my 30 year run, half of my career should be publicly available? That means that people could use half of my life’s work without owing me any compensation? Copyright protects a lot of small creators, not just Disney and the likes.
Good thing you’re covered for 70 years after you’re dead then
but if your work is good enough and better than your competitors it shouldn’t be a problem. that’s how the free market works right?
the problem here is capitalists want it both ways. they want to be able litigate any competition into oblivion… but hey, it s just business.
Way to sweepingly generalize something. I had to use copyright laws when I was a pro track photographer. I found out that one of the drivers owned a printing shop. He was telling people to purchase one photo from me at my price and then turning around, scanning it in, and re-printing them for the customers at a lower price. Same exact work, so you can’t argue about the quality. This fuck was also taking my images and using them in advertising which was also a copyright violation. This isn’t about who took the better picture as I was the person behind the camera. It’s about protecting work, that in my case involved time and actual sweat each and every weekend I was out in the sun. But it seems the majority of people in this thread think that he was justified in stealing MY work.
Do people buy your photos decades after you take them? No?
So reasonable copyright terms like 10 or 15 years should be totally fine with you. Unless you are just emotional about it and ranting online.
GlitchingtonWhen working at a print shop, we checked for copyright coverage all the time, and even refused orders over it. Watermarking the corner of your images is a good start. You can also make sure your web images are low resolution to prevent reprinting. 300ppi (pixels per inch) at scale is required for printing. Though the real kicker is, YOU are responsible for protecting your copyright, and you probably should have hired a lawyer.
I think you gotta keep it mind that, like reddit, a majority of the people here should be assumed to be teens or so.
favrionHey, just here to let you know that I 100% agree with you. You’re being attacked for no reason.
I think you should get paid for working, not for doing nothing due to work you did in the past. You know, like everyone else.
Exactly.
So if you release a movie that took you 5 years to make, you only get paid on the day it is released. Not the next day, because you should not get paid for doing nothing due to work you did in the past. Keep working. Gotcha.
Yes, absolutely. If it takes me a year to make a high-quality table, then I shouldn’t keep getting paid for the table for the rest of my life + 70 years + whatever new extension Disney comes up with.
Thats how it works for patents, medicines, etc…
When someone build a home… There is not even any time at all
What percentage of your money would come from 15 year old content you produced? Please reply with the median.
I agree, but the internet archive doesn’t have the authority to roll the duration back right? So it was illegal. We all agree the law needs to change, but it is still the law currently.
Sometimes laws need to b broken to bring changes.
I would be for it.
How about we implement UBI so we can stop pretending this is a good argument? Copyright is a blight on society.
I would!
Fredselfish As a writer I would be fine with this.
Well for one, piracy often helps artists by getting their media in the hands of more people, hence more exposure
StumblinbearOkay on some level I agree with you, but “paying with exposure” is bullshit. If I like something I’ll pay for it after the fact
balderdashLet me guess if you have read the thing you are making comments about.
What would you say are my odds?
100000:1?
Also as if the artist are actually paid much of anything by the publishers. Focus on the actual problem next time
The root problem is greed, full stop. Where to begin on that one?
They only issue here is that they stopped following the “one book one rental” rule. You’re allowed to “rent” out a digital copy but only if you have a physical version of the book not lent out. They stopped doing that during covid
I believe even “one book one rental” was kind of a gray area. Publishers probably didn’t sue at the time as the potential ruling was less certain, and they didn’t want a precedent not in their favour.
Libraries have been doing it for ages, this isn’t hugely different
Well then we should donate books to the Archive. Then in the interests of efficiency and cutting down on storage and transportation costs. I volunteer my home to store my newly donated books. If I ever need them back, I will request them.
blazeraCopyright only exists so rich people can own yet another thing they didnt make.
JamieThe original intent was good. You make something, you can legally ensure people can’t just copy your work and slap their name on it for profit. People could make creative works without fear of someone else ripping it away from them.
Then Disney just kept bribing politicians to extend it to a ridiculous degree so they wouldn’t lose Mickey to public domain until they moved his likeness into their trademark, which lives as long as it’s being used actively.
And then you have DMCA, where everyone is guilty until innocent and that whole can of worms, and DRM which is technically illegal to circumvent no matter how much time or what reason. Corporatization and the Internet turned that relatively simple and good ideas into an utter mess.
that original intent never mattered. no one's gonna make mickey mouse shorts and people be like "oh that must be their character, not Disney's". Mickey became famous and profitable from Disney's amazing animation and enjoyable writing. Without copyright, that's still the case. Queen and David Bowie didnt fall from financial or celebrity grace because Vanilla Ice copied them, because being copied doesnt detract from you. Again, all it did was enable the rich to profit from more things they didnt make. Get rid of all of it.
I think a short copyright period is fair enough to stop corporations putting out word for word copies of your book a week after you publish it. But it doesn’t need to be more than 5-10 years, the current death+70 that the USA has pushed on the world is obscene.
Any author popular enough to be copied by a corporation is already well supported by fans. People prefer to support artists they like.
I think you severely underestimate the greed of corporations. If there was no copyright whatsoever there would nothing to stop, for example, amazon not publishing the new novel by a middling author and instead selling their own version where they take all the profit.
I didnt disagree with that part. Youre missing the part where theres nothing stopping fans from giving the author money instead.
How are they finding fans?
The same way they are now?
By not having their work stolen and published under a different author?
Stolen before its ever been published? I think yall are getting tripped up with thinking corporations can see the future and can steal something that will become successful but has not yet been discovered by any readers. If its successful enough to be stolen, its already successful.