Activists rally to save Internet Archive as lawsuit threatens site

Post by a1369209993 » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 7:09 PM UTC

ericathegreat wrote: post #84

Scientificx wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would love to support the Internet Archive but the people behind it deliberately took steps that were guaranteed to bankrupt them once the publishers filed their (inevitable) lawsuit. Why would I support an organization that is determined to commit suicide? Because they hold a part of our digital history.

That's a tricky precedent to set though, isn't it? If you do sufficiently good work elsewhere in your organization, you can break the law without penalty? That's like McDonalds claiming that they should be allowed to mistreat their workers because they also run a children's charity. Doing a right thing doesn't grant you immunity when you do a wrong thing. And there was no question that what they did was illegal. Many…

Post by mattl » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 7:10 PM UTC

mcguire wrote: post #281

jacquesm wrote: post #89

I have three favorite properties on the web: Wikipedia, the Khan Academy and the Internet Archive. Whoever thought this was a good idea should own up to it and step down, this was a dumb move if there ever was one and risking one of the prime - and very fragile - properties on the web like this was highly irresponsible. Keep in mind that IA already has plenty of enemies who are continuously monitoring it and hoping t…

Scanning and providing access to digital copies of books was the dumb move---without that, they would not have attracted the enmity of publishers. The fastest and most successful way to avoid the destruction of an organization is always to concede to the wishes of its enemies. Preemptively, if possible.

Post by dang » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 7:14 PM UTC

som33 wrote: post #97

AmericanChopper wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I said: > Whether or not you think the existing copyright laws have exceeded their purpose is a completely different discussion Bringing up another completely seperate category of abuse is again another completely different discussion, and completely not relevant to this one.

You're clueless, it is directly relevant, you said "copyright laws are neither moral or immorral" which is a bs statement because every rule (which it is) has political consequences, you need a giant state to declare "some ideas are not sharable". AKA copyright is a cultural construct that evolved in one particular society at a particular point in history, not a natural law. So no, you don't get the idea of owning id…

Post by dang » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 7:17 PM UTC

AmericanChopper wrote: post #138

matheusmoreira wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To remove that protection from people who have already invested their time and money into creating content under those conditions, is simply to defraud them of that time and money, which for a lot of people could amount to their lives work. No. Laws can change unilaterally and society does not owe them anything. If they created something today and the law changed tomorrow thereby destroying the economic value of th…

Since this is the second time you’ve posted basically the same same comment in response to one of mine, I’ll just copy paste what I said last time. Perhaps you’ll respond to it this time? > Whether or not you think the existing copyright laws have exceeded their purpose is a completely different discussion, and one that is not at all related to this particular topic at all. Because the Internet Archive did not only v…

Post by dang » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 7:20 PM UTC

matheusmoreira wrote: post #120

AmericanChopper wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I stated in a different response, I don’t think there would be anything immoral about abolishing copyright in general (for newly created work at least). But if you did that then you would most certainly see much less people investing their time and money into creating it, I also imagine it would create a resurgence in draconian practices such as chained libraries. How does cinema-only releases sound to you? For bo…

> To remove that protection from people who have already invested their time and money into creating content under those conditions, is simply to defraud them of that time and money, which for a lot of people could amount to their lives work. No. Laws can change unilaterally and society does not owe them anything. If they created something today and the law changed tomorrow thereby destroying the economic value of th…