4 ms·
Not sure what they did to upset you, but they are absolutely archivists. Off the top of my head, they've preserved flash games and animations and written an int
by maxbond 2y ago
Not sure what they did to upset you, but they are absolutely archivists. Off the top of my head, they've preserved flash games and animations and written an interpreter to get them working in modern browsers; they've scanned books and made them borrowable from the browser, which I've personally used for archival research.
I'm guessing what you're referring to is their lawsuit with the publishing industry, where they attempted to lend digital copies of books without backing them with hard copies on a shelf. That was probably ill advised, and I suppose you could view it as political activism, but it's pretty obviously in furtherance of their mission as archivists - preserving content means little if it can't be accessed. (This was also in the context of the early pandemic, where access to physical libraries was extremely limited.)
- Dalewyn 2y ago[flagged]
- maxbond 2y agoI'm far less interested in how they measure up to some legal definition of an archive than I am in all the good work they do to archive things. If you think the former is more important, I would suggest the confusion is on your part.
- Dalewyn 2y agoAn archive very clearly means something very specific, and it's certainly not the "We want free-as-in-beer content!" thing a lot of people here and elsewhere scream about. If you cannot or will not consider what an archive is legally defined as, you cannot discuss in good faith about archives, archivists, or the act of archiving.
- maxbond 2y agoI'm not going to quote a definition to you, the only winning move in that game is not to play, but there are certainly more interpretations of "archive" than just the one. I certainly didn't assume you meant the narrow legal meaning in your original comment, and if you were only willing to entertain a single definition it would have been nice to know that upfront.
- seventyone 2y agoWords have meanings other than what the government says they are
- 22c 2y agoEven by OPs own link, they are wrong. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/108 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/108 > it is *not an infringement of copyright* for a library or archives Emphasis is mine here. The OPs link does not define what an archive is or isn't, it defines constraints on an archive or library such that it doesn't infringe on copyright according to US law. To conclude that the IA is not operating an archive because they might be infringing on some copyrights according to US law is fallacious thinking.
- Dalewyn 2y agoYou have it backwards. It is not an infringement of copyright if an archive or library reproduces and redistributes according to the exceptions set forth. The Internet Archive quite clearly does not abide by those exceptions, and as such they are infringing copyright and not an archive protected by these laws. If the Internet Archive (or anyone and anything for that matter) wants to spend my tax dollars, they can start by first abiding by the laws and regulations of the legal jurisdiction they reside in, in this case the USA's.
- 22c 2y agoThis is what you said: > An archive very clearly means something very specific What you perhaps meant to say was: "An archive that infringes US copyright laws should not be afforded protections under US law" Most people, myself included, took issue with the way you dismissed IA as not being an archive altogether; it clearly is an archive and whether or not it infringes US copyright law does not change that fact. Whether it should be protected by law is a different matter.
- Dalewyn 2y agoAn archive doesn't engage in reproduction beyond what is necessary to archive a work or to utilize the academical value of a work, as exempted by the copyright laws concerned. Internet Archive goes far beyond that and I stand by my claim that it is not an archive.
- lightedman 2y ago"An archive may not be available directly to the public" Well, then, most files that call themselves archives can't be legal under that definition. Wipe your computer of every archive you've downloaded, that would also include Linux ISO files.
- mcmcmc 2y agoDeliberate stupidity is not helpful. You know very well this discussion is regarding archival institutions, not a file format.
- lightedman 2y agoMany of those formats are made by archival institutions, and also follow rules like ISO certifications. Even librarians (my husband being head librarian for a city library) shake their head at this, and they're trained in databases and archives and related materials as a matter of profession, some to a higher degree than some CS students.
- Dalewyn 2y agoAre you (or your husband) really trying to tell me something like this[1] is an archive or a library? That is one of the more, if not most, flagrant demonstrations of the Internet Archive not understanding what an archive is. There's more where that came from, including stuff like their one:many digital book lending program. The law stipulates what an archive/library is and how they are protected from certain copyright prosecutions. The Internet Archive does not abide them, and thus I would absolutely not want my tax dollars sent their way. If they want to engage in flagrant piracy and political activism, they can do so on their own dime. [1]: https://archive.org/details/cdromsoftware https://archive.org/details/cdromsoftware
- lightedman 2y agoI see a lot of legal things there and I see a lot of illegal things there. Good archives grab everything, period. What's that adage? If you don't want it on the internet, don't put it there? The internet is basically one giant interconnected archive.
- hipadev23 2y agoCiting a law on what copyright permissions are granted to libraries and archives does not define what an archive is nor what archiving entails.