11–20 of 90 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can donate here: https://archive.org/donate/
I can’t get past the DRM they allow, if they stopped doing that and raised the bar I’d likely support them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can’t get past the DRM they allow, if they stopped doing that and raised the bar I’d likely support them.
i have looked for this, and kind find any useful intersection of the terms 'archive.org' and 'DRM'...except for bemoaning its general existence. you could elaborate?
They have collections they don’t let you download, they should just refuse those collections to force the platform to be free to download like the Gutenberg Project for example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can’t get past the DRM they allow, if they stopped doing that and raised the bar I’d likely support them.
I believe their stance on DRM is something like: • We (archive.org) can choose to either take in these DRMed works, archive them, and publish them online for public consumption (with their DRM intact); or we can refuse the DRMed works at the door, and thus have them unavailable for public consumption, also leaving them unpreserved; or we can archive the DRMed works, but just not publish them (again leaving them unava…
https://archive.org/details/buddhist-digital-resource-center...
Heck Yea! I didn't know this was a thing?!
If you like spongebob you're in luck too. Probably gonna spend the next few weekends building these.
Nice, this also includes the infamous half-life 2 leak from 2007 as well as some other ones that definitely weren't officially released. Or like re-volt, which is now owned by a company still actively trying to take down mirrors of the code that pop up, hence any unofficial port of it only releases in binary form. But then again a lot of the older leaked ones, nobody probably cares about too much. There's definitely…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe their stance on DRM is something like: • We (archive.org) can choose to either take in these DRMed works, archive them, and publish them online for public consumption (with their DRM intact); or we can refuse the DRMed works at the door, and thus have them unavailable for public consumption, also leaving them unpreserved; or we can archive the DRMed works, but just not publish them (again leaving them unava…
The problem is these work owners are using archive.org to play both sides of the argument, even worse consider the Tibetan Buddhist Resource Centern they digitized works they didn’t author, don’t own any rights to for the works that are 100s of years old, and then put them up on Archive.org under DRM. How is that in any way ethical to take someone’s work and do that? https://archive.org/details/buddhist-digital-resou…
When you create a "derivative work" of a work under copyright, you're creating a new work that "samples" the original, and then asserting your own copyright to it—that's why you need a license from the rightsholder in the first place, to allow you to claim those IP rights on the derivative work.
In the case of a public-domain work, if you create a "derivative work" from it, you own the IP of that derivative work, 100%. The public-domain parts that you sampled aren't still public domain just because they're copied word-for-word into your work. (I mean, the original work itself is still PD, but the sample of it in your derivative work isn't. It's a "color of your bits" thing[1].) "Public Domain" isn't an infectious copyleft license. You can "fork" and "make proprietary" a PD work, and that's 100% allowed.
Now, I don't know enough about the Buddhist texts in question to say whether their presentation of them here qualifies as a "derivative work"—but usually even just translating a work makes it a derivative, so, if the TBRC were the ones that translated these texts to English? They own 'em.
(If you want a public version, do the same thing FOSS communities do when a FOSS project is forked into a proprietary product: walk back to the last open branch-point of the source, and make your own open fork. In this case: translate the texts yourself!)
[1] https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23
---
Also, there might be a more interesting consideration at play in this particular case: if a work is never published, then AFAIK, it never enters copyright; its copyright "clock" only begins when someone publishes it. So e.g. the diary of Anne Frank doesn't have a copyright year of 1945, but rather 1947—the year it was found and published. Until then, the work is a "manuscript", equivalent in IP rights status to a draft laying on a writer's desk destined for a publisher.
You can think of such a manuscript as a secret root node in a "derivative work" tree: the author creates work A [the manuscript], the publisher derives work B [the published book], the author assigns work-A derivative-work rights to the publisher, and then also [usually] relinquishes all rights to work A. Because of this, the copyright clock is relative to work B, not work A. If copyright stayed attached to manuscripts, you could run out the copyright [in a pre-Disney copyright regime] by just spending 30 years writing a book!
Nice, this also includes the infamous half-life 2 leak from 2007 as well as some other ones that definitely weren't officially released. Or like re-volt, which is now owned by a company still actively trying to take down mirrors of the code that pop up, hence any unofficial port of it only releases in binary form. But then again a lot of the older leaked ones, nobody probably cares about too much. There's definitely…
[1] https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-02-21-the-boy-who-st...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can’t get past the DRM they allow, if they stopped doing that and raised the bar I’d likely support them.
I believe their stance on DRM is something like: • We (archive.org) can choose to either take in these DRMed works, archive them, and publish them online for public consumption (with their DRM intact); or we can refuse the DRMed works at the door, and thus have them unavailable for public consumption, also leaving them unpreserved; or we can archive the DRMed works, but just not publish them (again leaving them unava…
They definitely can - they're an official archive. They can't have people looking at it online while the item is in copyright without putting some reasonable safeguards in, but that's not the same thing as not being allowed to archive it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe their stance on DRM is something like: • We (archive.org) can choose to either take in these DRMed works, archive them, and publish them online for public consumption (with their DRM intact); or we can refuse the DRMed works at the door, and thus have them unavailable for public consumption, also leaving them unpreserved; or we can archive the DRMed works, but just not publish them (again leaving them unava…
> but we can’t legally archive it without DRM They definitely can - they're an official archive. They can't have people looking at it online while the item is in copyright without putting some reasonable safeguards in, but that's not the same thing as not being allowed to archive it.