291–300 of 358 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re missing the point that IA is a library , and, as such, is awarded certain protections that an archival site might not otherwise have.
Honest questions - Who gets to define an entity as a "library" and is IA defined as such, legally speaking?
Indie publisher here. My company publishes mostly how-to guides relating technology, personal finance, and health. In fact this afternoon I am reviewing proofs of a new title written by a surgeon meant to inform patients (and their family members) dealing with thyroid cancer and thyroid nodules. What I and my peers do for a living is nothing like building rocket ships or designing amazing software applications, but i…
How would you feel if some aging industry held back the creation of the society of the future simply because they don't belong in it?
The entire publishing industry has been rendered obsolete by modern technology. They exist to make and distribute copies of books. We have far better ways to do that now. The only reason they still exist is the fact they own the intellectual property. The government has granted them a monopoly that will last over a hundred years. That is literally the only reason why they're able to compete with vastly superior technology.
The truth is copyright makes no sense in the 21st century. When copyright was created, people had to be major industry players in order to make copies at scale. People needed industrial hardware like printing presses. This is no longer the case: everyone has at least one computer, making copies now costs $0 and is as easy as copy paste. Once the data is known it's trivial to make copies and distribute them. People infringe copyright every day without even realizing it.
Only the first copy must be paid for. Authors must find a way to get paid before they write their books. Crowdfunding and patronage might be the answer. Creation must be like an investment rather than a product to be sold. Insisting on maintaning the archaic copyright industry means ignoring reality.
Indie publisher here. My company publishes mostly how-to guides relating technology, personal finance, and health. In fact this afternoon I am reviewing proofs of a new title written by a surgeon meant to inform patients (and their family members) dealing with thyroid cancer and thyroid nodules. What I and my peers do for a living is nothing like building rocket ships or designing amazing software applications, but i…
My questions on this are very simple: 1. Did they legally acquire the books they scanned? 2. Are they only allowing one subscriber at a time to check out/read the book? If so, then they are doing exactly what libraries do. To argue that there's some fundamental difference between a physical book and an electronic book is exactly why people hate the music industry, and if the publishing industry tries to go in the sam…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is no incentive to invest substantial resources in development if there is no ability to profit. Ever hear of this hip new thing called FOSS?
If you build a building, you expect to be able to use it. If you create a product, you expect to be able to sell it. If you create a new idea, you expect to be able to monetize it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>How would you feel if someone took your output without permission, whether it's designs or code or something else unique and hard to make? While I'm somewhat ambiguous about this IA matter, the example you bring up is rather unconvincing on HN. I, just like many other fellow users here, publish our code (both end product and tools) to public, and to organizational, Git repositories. We have structured our work and o…
> I, just like many other fellow users here, publish our code (both end product and tools) to public, and to organizational, Git repositories. Sure, but that code is generally tied to a license. Very rarely are people releasing things into the public domain. All that code people are releasing are being released with the support of copyright. In fact, people here on HN and other communities very much oppose people tak…
That's only to work around the fact that relevant governments are incompetent to send corporations and executives to prison for source code fraud. (That is, providing software exclusively in a form - such as a service like Office 365, physical device like a shitphone, or build artifact like a .exe file - that is not fit for use due to the practical inability to perform maintainance and further software development on it.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My questions on this are very simple: 1. Did they legally acquire the books they scanned? 2. Are they only allowing one subscriber at a time to check out/read the book? If so, then they are doing exactly what libraries do. To argue that there's some fundamental difference between a physical book and an electronic book is exactly why people hate the music industry, and if the publishing industry tries to go in the sam…
2. They are not. http://blog.archive.org/2020/03/24/announcing-a-national-eme...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Archive.is/Archive.today is currently embroiled in a petty battle against CloudFlare DNS users, which is, imho, contrary to the spirit of an "archive" that is supposed to serve as a backup for things. I would rather support essentially any other service than one that actively tampers with DNS resolution for petty reasons. https://community.cloudflare.com/t/1-1-1-1-does-not-resolve-...
A "petty battle against CloudFlare DNS users"? No. They require a standardized DNS extension in order for their services to operate properly, and CloudFlare is waging a petty battle against the standard.
And that particular extension exists solely as means for DNS proxies to violate the privacy of their users by leaking client identity data to upstream DNS servers. There are several reasons why Cloudflare is evil and needs to die (especially ReCaptcha and associated attacks on TOR), but archive.is is firmly in the wrong on this particular point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honest questions - Who gets to define an entity as a "library" and is IA defined as such, legally speaking?
...the government?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay that seems like pretty brazen copyright infringement then. That's crazy! Maybe they hope to disrupt the publishing industry, but really just sounds like a way to get sued.
It was. Some of us pointed this out at the time and got downvoted for saying that reality does not conform to "thing other HN posters would like."
I am completely willing to believe that some people did, but the overwhelming majority I saw were getting downvoted for (whether deliberately or carelessly) confusing "copyright infringement is not legal" (which is true, but common knowledge) with "copyright infringement is not a active moral good" (which is false, at least of the type of copyright infringement archive.org is doing), and concluding that the Internet Archive was doing something morally, rather than just strategically, wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actual libraries have limited copies of any book, even e-books. In an actual library, a book cannot be downloaded by the entire Internet at one time.
So does the IA during normal operation.