Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

If we lose the Internet Archive, we’re screwed

sbstatesman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 614 posts

Re: If we lose the Internet Archive, we’re screwed

#291

Post by theli0nheart »

lenocinor wrote: post #140

I appreciate the metaphor with the Library of Alexandria, but TIL that it may not have burned catastrophically and may have been rebuilt after: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria “Despite the widespread modern belief that the Library of Alexandria was burned once and cataclysmically destroyed, the Library actually declined gradually over the course of several centuries. This decline began with the…

Came here to write this. That Julius Caesar burned the library seems to be a common misconception.

Re: If we lose the Internet Archive, we’re screwed

#292

Post by bombcar »

ncallaway wrote: post #134
jsnell wrote: post #7

The title implies that losing this lawsuit is threatening the existence of the Internet Archive. Is that really the case? If it is true, then maybe IA should be run by somebody with better judgement. This was a project with a massive chance of failure (how could anyone think that this wasn't just blatantly infringing?) and a low payoff. If it's also an existential risk, then wtf are they doing running it?

Wouldn’t someone with better judgement have shut down the wayback machine as too much of a risk of a copyright infringement lawsuit?

The wayback machine has much MUCH better arguments (it's copies of public content at a point in time by definition), even the DMCA has carve outs for preservation and scholarly works, many use it for real things and not just piracy, etc.

The wayback machine arguments are good enough that they could receive a Supreme Court decision along the lines of "technically this is illegal, but the law is wrong" type.

Re: If we lose the Internet Archive, we’re screwed

#293

Post by anotherman554 »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #197
criddell wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whether it's legally permissible to copy a printed material and distribute that copy as though it were the printed material was/is unresolved. A lot of IA supporters wish they would have gone about discovering this in a way that protected the actual internet archive. Maybe I don't understand the actual risks to the IA, but it feels like a reckless move.

This could be tricky. As I understand it (not a lawyer, etc.), whether an organization believes it is operating within the confines of the law can impact the outcome of a legal dispute. The important distinction here is that these are competing interpretations of Fair Use; there's no case law (as far as I'm aware) that settles this one way or the other. So, for the Archive to go, "well, let's set up a shell corporati…

I don't think anyone is suggesting the archive create a shell corporation. If archive leadership desperately wanted to get sued by publishers, they could have resigned from working at the archive and formed a different organization.

Re: If we lose the Internet Archive, we’re screwed

#294

Post by ncallaway »

bombcar wrote: post #272
ncallaway wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, I think the argument about publishers choosing to release new, edited versions of older books is a silly one. We should let the marketplace and the marketplace of ideas sort it out. But, the fact that they changed digital copies that were previously purchased is insane. The companies that do that should be pilloried and shamed for such an action. Frankly, I’m no longer participating in digital purchases for musi…

Digital copies are subject to many hundreds of revisions/changes that you may never notice (most are typo fixing). Even print editions have these types of changes, and some are even substantial (famously, the Lord of the Rings has various changes made between editions by Tolkien himself, mostly fixing typos and minor inconsistencies; but he also accidentally got a revision of the Hobbit that was a major plot change s…

> Even print editions have these types of changes

This is different, though. They don’t break into your house, find the book on your shelf, and update it with a sharpie.

The digital corrections and changes are _fine_ if they are opt in. It’s when they are automatically applied, and there is no (legal, tos abiding) way to keep the original file and reject updates that’s… horrifying.

Re: If we lose the Internet Archive, we’re screwed

#295

Post by Kim_Bruning »

tablespoon wrote: post #23
jawns wrote: post #4

I know the government has viewed certain companies as "too big to fail," because of the negative financial impact we would experience if they were to do so. I wonder if there needs to be a cultural equivalent, where a repository of digital or physical artifacts is "too big to fail" because of the negative cultural impact their failure would have. In the absence of that, anyone who sees high cultural value to the pres…

> I know the government has viewed certain companies as "too big to fail," because of the negative financial impact we would experience if they were to do so. > I wonder if there needs to be a cultural equivalent, where a repository of digital or physical artifacts is "too big to fail" because of the negative cultural impact their failure would have. If there is, the Internet Archive isn't it. Yeah, it's super import…

> If they shut down, the story wouldn't even be able to muscle it's way onto the front page of the New York Times

What do New York Times reporters use to check web history when researching for their stories? Do they just make stuff up?

Re: If we lose the Internet Archive, we’re screwed

#296

Post by agentwiggles »

tablespoon wrote: post #23
jawns wrote: post #4

I know the government has viewed certain companies as "too big to fail," because of the negative financial impact we would experience if they were to do so. I wonder if there needs to be a cultural equivalent, where a repository of digital or physical artifacts is "too big to fail" because of the negative cultural impact their failure would have. In the absence of that, anyone who sees high cultural value to the pres…

> I know the government has viewed certain companies as "too big to fail," because of the negative financial impact we would experience if they were to do so. > I wonder if there needs to be a cultural equivalent, where a repository of digital or physical artifacts is "too big to fail" because of the negative cultural impact their failure would have. If there is, the Internet Archive isn't it. Yeah, it's super import…

I can't disagree about the irresponsibility of the IA when it comes to the Emergency Library stuff. But I for one would be pretty heartbroken to lose access to the absolutely enormous catalog of live shows from a ton of bands that IA hosts completely legally.

Re: If we lose the Internet Archive, we’re screwed

#297

Post by bombcar »

PuppyTailWags wrote: post #269
bombcar wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have the technology now to balance copyright - simply put - if an item is not available for a reasonable price , then the copyright expires or becomes "cannot be sold except by original author" or something. Needing to keep things like books that are currently in print protected shouldn't prevent people from obtaining works that have fallen out of print, apparently irrevocably. Print-on-demand and digital copies m…

I'm completely comfortable with a "if no one's making it available reasonably, it should be made so" policy. I'm only concerned for living creators to retain rights to their work and be compensated for their creations while they are still actively using their work to give themselves a living, so I would be fine with ensuring work isn't irrevocably lost due to lack of copies.

I think the other side of copyrights where you can irrevocably sign over your rights (which may be more of a US thing, UK seems to have some inalienable ones) is a significant issue (as mentioned, the Foster thing where Disney wasn't even paying him because they argued they'd acquired assets without liabilities - https://winteriscoming.net/2021/04/23/disney-star-wars-autho... ).

It's hard to fully balance. Another example would be Don Rosa's McDuck comics - he had to fully assign all copyright on them to Disney when making them, so the way the reprinters get him some money is by having him write forwards/commentary, those he can retain the copyright on - https://career-end.donrosa.de has more

Re: If we lose the Internet Archive, we’re screwed

#298

Post by ghaff »

beojan wrote: post #132
jawns wrote: post #4

I know the government has viewed certain companies as "too big to fail," because of the negative financial impact we would experience if they were to do so. I wonder if there needs to be a cultural equivalent, where a repository of digital or physical artifacts is "too big to fail" because of the negative cultural impact their failure would have. In the absence of that, anyone who sees high cultural value to the pres…

> I wonder if there needs to be a cultural equivalent, where a repository of digital or physical artifacts is "too big to fail" because of the negative cultural impact their failure would have. In the US that would be the Library of Congress with its Mandatory Deposit requirement.

Which in the grand scheme of things almost nothing is deposited to since the US aligned with Berne Convention lack of explicit copyright notification requirements.

Re: If we lose the Internet Archive, we’re screwed

#300

Post by Dalewyn »

pessimizer wrote: post #68
tablespoon wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I know the government has viewed certain companies as "too big to fail," because of the negative financial impact we would experience if they were to do so. > I wonder if there needs to be a cultural equivalent, where a repository of digital or physical artifacts is "too big to fail" because of the negative cultural impact their failure would have. If there is, the Internet Archive isn't it. Yeah, it's super import…

> Yeah, especially since the Internet Archive (as an organization) has proven itself to be irresponsible. I think the archive made a bad decision. I do not think it is generally irresponsible.

The Internet Archive is one of the easiest-to-access source of warez right now, among other things.

Either they have a grand plan for the targets they are painting on themselves, or they are bloody irresponsible idiots; I'm inclined to bet on the latter given no further contexts.

Post reply on HN