761–770 of 848 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe a European country that gives much less shit?
Europe is not a third world country, where nobody gives a shit. It has laws and regulations like the US. Educate yourself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you telling me... that an archive has... archived something? Calling the cops right now!
Public and University libraries are also archives, but they follow strict guidelines to stay within the bounds of copyright law and fair use. There are limitations on how you can view the archived copyrighted material, limitations on how you can do so, etc. No one is claiming that "archives" are a bad thing, at least not that I've seen. What I'm complaining about with IA specifically is that they're basically taking…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you telling me... that an archive has... archived something? Calling the cops right now!
Internet Archive is engaging in redistribution with flagrant disregard for the law, so it is not an archive despite what it says on the tin. Note that preservation and redistribution are two very different things, there are very specific limitations to redistributing something you don't have explicit licensing or permissions for. Further reading: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/108
The law should be disregarded. Its stupid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Internet Archive should probably have, granting access to the data in the archive, as a core goal and calling that activism is bizarre to me.
I don't think it's quite that simple. I can't just scrape nytimes.com and re-host it on my own website legally - that's clear copyright infringement. Google news quoting article excerpts was legally controversial, as was their book search function, and their archive option. I always assumed website owners were just sorta turning a blind eye to archive.org because (a) it's slow and (b) it doesn't get indexed in google
IA is physically holding a physical copy of the book, and then on a 1 at a time basis, allowing digital access to that physical book.
It would be like, purchasing a copy of the new york times, scanning it, and letting people online read it one at a time. Which would be perfectly legal except for the scanning and online. It paints the law as insane, not IA as flagrant copying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yea, I don't like the whole loaning out idea either. Loaning implies ownership. Corporate propaganda has done a good job of convincing people otherwise. I came across an article that was really good at explaining the issue of ownership around digital goods that people who want to have a balanced view of the situation should read. https://linustechtips.com/topic/953835-you-own-the-software-...
The biggest piece lost in the conversation around digital/IP rights is awareness of how it worked pre-digital. First sale doctrine (in the US) said the buyer owned the physical copy and could resell or do what they wanted with that single copy.^ Obviously, that isn't portable to a zero-copy-cost digital realm. However, the "buyers never actually own anything digital" modern reality is vastly different than the histor…
I'm not sure how you figure that. Its still a sale. You might want to read though how much case law there is all over the world that conflicts with that conclusion. Read that post, it has plenty of examples how it doesn't matter if its digital.
Here is one in particular:
In a 2016 Australian case regarding Valve's refund policy for Steam, Australia's High Court carefully examined whether computer games sold through Steam are goods (and therefore property and consumer rights apply to them) or services (and therefore no property or consumer rights or apply to them), and concluded that they are fully goods, and that Valve doesn't merely sell a license to use the software, but in-fact sells the software itself, and that whoever buys a game from Steam becomes owner of the software that they purchased. Australia's High Court concluded: "Each of Valve’s challenges to the applicability of the Australian Consumer Law fails. The conflict of laws provisions in the Australian Consumer Law did not essentially carve out an exception for conduct by foreign corporations like Valve governed by a different contractual proper law. Valve supplied goods (which are defined as including computer software)."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we are going to use ridiculous definitions of stealing, I will have to point out that private, non-personal property - anything that you don't have direct personal possession and control over - is theft. It's copyright infringement. It's not theft. Theft deprives an owner of use of an item.
TIL theft of labour is not real theft.
Instead, it's treated as a civil issue, when it's pursued at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So people with perfect vision and hearing should be able to check out materials from a library and people with impairments shouldn't? That's also against the law. So you're against the existence of libraries at all? Since they provide free access to the fruits of someone else's labor? That is at least an honest position. I won't pretend to have any respect for it, but at least it's consistent.
> So people with perfect vision and hearing should be able to check out materials from a library and people with impairments shouldn't? That's also against the law. People with impairments can also check materials out from the library. The existence of a library for some things does not mandate a library for all things. > So you're against the existence of libraries at all? I think that first sale doctrine strikes a…
"Degradation" is the conception publishers want to think of applying to their goods. Because they want an income stream worthy of items that perish in a matter of years, not decades or centuries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Internet Archive is engaging in redistribution with flagrant disregard for the law, so it is not an archive despite what it says on the tin. Note that preservation and redistribution are two very different things, there are very specific limitations to redistributing something you don't have explicit licensing or permissions for. Further reading: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/108
>flagrant disregard for the law The law should be disregarded. Its stupid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Public and University libraries are also archives, but they follow strict guidelines to stay within the bounds of copyright law and fair use. There are limitations on how you can view the archived copyrighted material, limitations on how you can do so, etc. No one is claiming that "archives" are a bad thing, at least not that I've seen. What I'm complaining about with IA specifically is that they're basically taking…
Right but they are breaking weird dumb specific laws. They arent posting ebooks for free, they are specifically linking them to the number of physical copies they have on hand. Like lending your mate a copy of your own book. The issue seems to be whether they have the specific right to transform a physical book into a digital book for the purposes of lending. Its not the megaupload approach at all.
This lawsuit came about in very large part because Internet Archive stopped linking to physical copies on hand during covid. That was the straw that broke the camel's back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do not get to break the law just because you are working around some sort of restriction. The law says what it says and the judge is correct that IA violated it.
c.f. https://ifixit.com/News/54317/section-1201-exemptions-for-20... Different laws may be in conflict, and you have to resolve it one way or the other. For example if copyright law would prevent you from repairing your device (like you need to put a coprighted image of an Xbox logo on your hard disk for it to be recognised) then your repair right may trump the distribution rights of the copyright owner.