3 ms·

> If it is true, then maybe IA should be run by somebody with better judgement. I'm skeptical that you even get the IA without someone like these folks running

> If it is true, then maybe IA should be run by somebody with better judgement. I'm skeptical that you even get the IA without someone like these folks running it. Imagine you're the type of crazy person who starts and runs the IA, the pandemic starts and libraries and schools shut down, and there's a big button in front of you saying "give people access to knowledge that was just removed from them". I dunno man, I can understand the type of person who creates the IA also feeling compelled to push that button under those circumstances. Was it a bad decision? I dunno, probably, I guess. It was a weird and hard time. I'm not angry at them for doing what felt right.

999900000999 4y ago
Ehh. I'm not really buying the Robinhood theory. This feels like some techies thinking their above the law and getting a reality check. It's not like actual libraries don't offer digital lending. You might need to wait a week for Gane of Thrones, but it'll be OK. IA decided the world was unfair and with a bit of arrogance decided to 'correct' it. Let's hope IA is able to just stop lending books and still exist.
- faeranne 4y ago
  There's a seperation between a library and a pirate site, so it's kinda a bad faith argument, but even going on the merits of your argument, I am pressed to point out that, yes, other libraries have digital lending. It's called Controlled Digital Lending. CDL. The thing that this current lawsuit is trying to remove. So this isn't just an argument against IA's library wing, but a move to remove all library and archive efforts. Penguin has come out and said they are against libraries hosting any of their books at all. US law makes this something they can't fight in physical print, but this is their attempt to start destroying these services.
  - 999900000999 4y ago
    Other libraries actually pay for a license to to lend out Ebooks. And they need to comply with different terms depending on the publisher. https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/libraries/article/77904-penguin-random-house-changes-its-library-e-book-terms.html https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/l... Now you can argue if this is fair or not, but this is how Ebook lending is legally done. CDL, where you lend out one Ebook per physical copy was never established as legal. It was tolerated, until IA decided to allow for unlimited lending. I don't see how books are special here. If I buy a bunch of DVDs off eBay, I can't set up a streaming service tomorrow hosting this content. Even if only one person can watch a movie at a time, I've no right to redistribute that content. If CDL is legal, then why limit it to books. Why not movies, games, TV shows ? See the problem here, the laws of physics and basic wear and tear create a fundamental difference between physical media and digital media.
Mezzie 4y ago
It's an argument for the separation of library and archival work. Access to knowledge and preservation of knowledge are separate things, even if they have a lot in common. It might be wise for someone to consider a truly archival only organization.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  IANAL, but in fact copyright law has been abundantly clear that copying something strictly for archival purposes is legal, too. It really is the (re)distribution of archived materials that is in the wrong here. IA could go and archive every single bit of digitized data, copyrighted or otherwise, and if that's all they do then nobody will or can complain.
  - Kim_Bruning 4y ago
    The purpose of copyright law is to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" [1] . It stands to reason that deleting or allowing everything to bit-rot is probably not conducive to the promotion of progress. We need libraries and archives. [1] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8/clause-8/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8...
  - Mezzie 4y ago
    Yup. I and many other librarians have private 'pirate' libraries of various materials, particularly ephemera that aren't covered by mandatory deposit or digital content. We're just not allowed to distribute them. Do we abuse this? Oh hell yes - most of us are archiving according to our personal interests. Which is the main concern about the IA going offline: We shouldn't need to rely on some of us personally saving things (and we can confirm each other's provenance - in order to trust my archive is what I say it is, you need to trust me).
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  Perhaps we could let the publishing industry operate the turnstiles and collect a small but increasingly large fee from people trying to use it, until the public commons was indistinguishable from private property?
PragmaticPulp 4y ago
> I'm skeptical that you even get the IA without someone like these folks running it. Isolating business ventures from each other is common practice. They didn't need to run both operations out of the same business entity. > I dunno man, I can understand the type of person who creates the IA also feeling compelled to push that button under those circumstances. Was it a bad decision? I dunno, probably, I guess. The operation may have been a risky decision, but doing it under the umbrella of the Internet Archive made it a terrible decision.

999900000999 4y ago

Ehh. I'm not really buying the Robinhood theory. This feels like some techies thinking their above the law and getting a reality check. It's not like actual libraries don't offer digital lending. You might need to wait a week for Gane of Thrones, but it'll be OK. IA decided the world was unfair and with a bit of arrogance decided to 'correct' it. Let's hope IA is able to just stop lending books and still exist.

faeranne 4y ago
There's a seperation between a library and a pirate site, so it's kinda a bad faith argument, but even going on the merits of your argument, I am pressed to point out that, yes, other libraries have digital lending. It's called Controlled Digital Lending. CDL. The thing that this current lawsuit is trying to remove. So this isn't just an argument against IA's library wing, but a move to remove all library and archive efforts. Penguin has come out and said they are against libraries hosting any of their books at all. US law makes this something they can't fight in physical print, but this is their attempt to start destroying these services.
- 999900000999 4y ago
  Other libraries actually pay for a license to to lend out Ebooks. And they need to comply with different terms depending on the publisher. https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/libraries/article/77904-penguin-random-house-changes-its-library-e-book-terms.html https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/l... Now you can argue if this is fair or not, but this is how Ebook lending is legally done. CDL, where you lend out one Ebook per physical copy was never established as legal. It was tolerated, until IA decided to allow for unlimited lending. I don't see how books are special here. If I buy a bunch of DVDs off eBay, I can't set up a streaming service tomorrow hosting this content. Even if only one person can watch a movie at a time, I've no right to redistribute that content. If CDL is legal, then why limit it to books. Why not movies, games, TV shows ? See the problem here, the laws of physics and basic wear and tear create a fundamental difference between physical media and digital media.

Mezzie 4y ago

It's an argument for the separation of library and archival work. Access to knowledge and preservation of knowledge are separate things, even if they have a lot in common. It might be wise for someone to consider a truly archival only organization.

Dalewyn 4y ago
IANAL, but in fact copyright law has been abundantly clear that copying something strictly for archival purposes is legal, too. It really is the (re)distribution of archived materials that is in the wrong here. IA could go and archive every single bit of digitized data, copyrighted or otherwise, and if that's all they do then nobody will or can complain.
- Kim_Bruning 4y ago
  The purpose of copyright law is to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" [1] . It stands to reason that deleting or allowing everything to bit-rot is probably not conducive to the promotion of progress. We need libraries and archives. [1] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8/clause-8/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8...
- Mezzie 4y ago
  Yup. I and many other librarians have private 'pirate' libraries of various materials, particularly ephemera that aren't covered by mandatory deposit or digital content. We're just not allowed to distribute them. Do we abuse this? Oh hell yes - most of us are archiving according to our personal interests. Which is the main concern about the IA going offline: We shouldn't need to rely on some of us personally saving things (and we can confirm each other's provenance - in order to trust my archive is what I say it is, you need to trust me).
anigbrowl 4y ago
Perhaps we could let the publishing industry operate the turnstiles and collect a small but increasingly large fee from people trying to use it, until the public commons was indistinguishable from private property?

PragmaticPulp 4y ago

> I'm skeptical that you even get the IA without someone like these folks running it. Isolating business ventures from each other is common practice. They didn't need to run both operations out of the same business entity. > I dunno man, I can understand the type of person who creates the IA also feeling compelled to push that button under those circumstances. Was it a bad decision? I dunno, probably, I guess. The operation may have been a risky decision, but doing it under the umbrella of the Internet Archive made it a terrible decision.