3 ms·

Interesting. So under this working theory, the entirety of the IA is fundamentally against copyright unless specifically allowed/released per site? So perhaps

Interesting. So under this working theory, the entirety of the IA is fundamentally against copyright unless specifically allowed/released per site? So perhaps a new IA that only indexes creative commons licensed sites might be in order?

ghaff 11y ago
>Interesting. So under this working theory, the entirety of the IA is fundamentally against copyright unless specifically allowed/released per site? IANAL, but basically yes. It's one reason why the IA respects robots.txt even retroactively. The reality is that, if something was posted publicly by a copyright holder and intended to be shared, the overwhelming majority of people/entities don't care that it's being archived somewhere but there's no particular exemption for something like the IA.
- nitrogen 11y ago
  The IA is like a library. Libraries don't have to get special permission from book publishers to be libraries.
  - Chlorus 11y ago
    Except it isn't. By this standard, book publishers would have to go pound sand if libraries started giving away infinitely many copies of their book.
    - ghaff 11y ago
      To be more precise, it doesn't *matter" if the Internet Archive is a "library" or not because libraries don't have any special status with respect to copyright law in the US. (Beyond whatever special status publishers may choose to give certain classes of libraries with respect to digital rights.) You or I can choose to setup a lending library tomorrow and we have the same rights to loan out physical books as the New York Public Library does.
      - cookiecaper 11y ago
        Yes, as you point out, due to the first sale doctrine. Such a thing doesn't exist in the digital realm.
  - ghaff 11y ago
    Because of first sale doctrine. Anyone can set up a library by buying physical books, DVDs, or anything else they want to lend out to one person at a time without any sort of special permission. Digital library content, on the other hand, is based on specific contracts with the rights holders.

ghaff 11y ago

>Interesting. So under this working theory, the entirety of the IA is fundamentally against copyright unless specifically allowed/released per site? IANAL, but basically yes. It's one reason why the IA respects robots.txt even retroactively. The reality is that, if something was posted publicly by a copyright holder and intended to be shared, the overwhelming majority of people/entities don't care that it's being archived somewhere but there's no particular exemption for something like the IA.

nitrogen 11y ago
The IA is like a library. Libraries don't have to get special permission from book publishers to be libraries.
- Chlorus 11y ago
  Except it isn't. By this standard, book publishers would have to go pound sand if libraries started giving away infinitely many copies of their book.
  - ghaff 11y ago
    To be more precise, it doesn't *matter" if the Internet Archive is a "library" or not because libraries don't have any special status with respect to copyright law in the US. (Beyond whatever special status publishers may choose to give certain classes of libraries with respect to digital rights.) You or I can choose to setup a lending library tomorrow and we have the same rights to loan out physical books as the New York Public Library does.
    - cookiecaper 11y ago
      Yes, as you point out, due to the first sale doctrine. Such a thing doesn't exist in the digital realm.
- ghaff 11y ago
  Because of first sale doctrine. Anyone can set up a library by buying physical books, DVDs, or anything else they want to lend out to one person at a time without any sort of special permission. Digital library content, on the other hand, is based on specific contracts with the rights holders.