Yet again the Internet Archiving is suffering big this time, a coalition of major record labels filed a lawsuit against the Internet Archive demanding $700 million for the extensive catalog of 78 rpm records. 78s are sometimes more than a century old at this point and i bet a lot of them are out of copyright, but i suppose for the few that still are majors are hitting it big towards the IA
This lawsuit is pretty much another existential threat to the Internet Archive and everything it preserves, including the Wayback Machine, and we’re fucked if we ever lose access to the Wayback Machine.
the original article asked to sign a petition, but i think a more logical way to support is to donate them directly so that they have more money to better defend themselves in court in this and other cases they’ll undoubtedly face in the future
If the library does not have the license or a right, guaranteed by law, to do that, then it is piracy.
US copyright law has been co-opted by corporations for the exclusive profit of corporate copyright holders. Just because a law exists doesn’t mean it is just. Props to the IA for fighting the good fight.
Agree, but breaking the law and putting your whole operation at risk is not a clever nor productive way to fight it.
God forbid they act as if they (or anyone at all by your logic?) have some skin in the game.
Which law? in which place? at what time ?
Where it’s hosted? where it’s being accessed? the intermediate locations ?
Which license, is the license enforceable in this context? who decides if it is? what if there are conflicting decisions from different applications of law, who arbitrates?
Do you mean piracy in the maritime sense? or do you mean copyright infringement? perhaps trademark infringement? or intellectual property theft? based on which law in which geographic region ?
This isn’t even hyperbole, the things you are talking about have nuance and context, pretending they don’t is a failure of imagination or intentional trolling.
It’s called property. You buy a book. You don’t get to copy it, but you get to show it to anyone you want.
Private property is the smallest unit of warfare.
The only books I’ve paid for are the ones where the author explicitly allows copy and free distribution.
Well, those and the ones that get bundled with online access way back in uni.
That’s nice. But why? Do you not miss out on e.g. The Great Gatsby?
How many books have you paid for, and how many does a library have?
Beyond missing the subtext…
I don’t actually read all that much. I’m excruciatingly slow and i don’t currently commute. Most of my reading was on public transit or camping. But the authors i like just happen to either be ok with sharing copies of their work or it’s available for free anyways. That said I’ve bought maybe twenty books in the last decade…
Textbooks from exploitative publishers especially i refuse to pay for. E.g. Wiley, pearson, McGraw-Hill, etc… As well technical publications and journals.
The great Gatsby was provided by school when i read it. All the books were in my k-12. Most the students couldn’t afford them.
And The Great Gatsby was brought to you by a library—your school’s.
Yes?
Did i say something anti-library or am i reading into this wrong?
It is or at least should be a library’s right to buy and lend books.
I get it now. I was kind if skipping some context. I was saying under legal means sharing books is fine and good(not paying for it). e.g. going to a library. But you can certainly copy books and distribute them. I posit that it’s nearly always ethical to do so. Whether or not it’s legal is a different question and depends on the material in question.