3 ms·

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

by 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?

3 ms·

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

by Mezzie 4y ago

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?