5 ms·
As a graybeard fan of IA, I find their hubris damning. If they had one thing going for themselves it was some level of grandfathered goodwill - all of which the
by lubujackson 2y ago
As a graybeard fan of IA, I find their hubris damning. If they had one thing going for themselves it was some level of grandfathered goodwill - all of which they stupidly used up for this "COVID made me do it" nonsense.
It may have always been inevitable that copyright laws would burn down our modern Library of Alexandria, but they didn't have to hand out torches like this.
- jampekka 2y agoNobody should attempt any systemic change, let's rather lose one small isolated case at a time.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> attempt any systemic change That’s the joke. This never had a chance of changing anything. All it’s done is make publishers look reasonable, because most people don’t believe one person should be able to unilaterally override millions of authors’ preferences around their works. (To say nothing of their livelihoods.)
- jampekka 2y agoLivelihoods of long dead people is a weirdly pressing issue when it comes to intellectual property.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> Livelihoods of long dead people This is a reasonable stance! If the IA had only released books of dead authors, they’d have a point. They didn’t.
- Retric 2y agoLooking at let’s play, fan fiction, and straight up piracy, etc I don’t think most people agree with the current copyright system even slightly. Edit: On Hacker News more people upvote subscription bypass links in articles than downvote them.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> I don’t think most people agree with the current copyright system No. But most people don’t agree with the IA’s anything goes position either. I hate our system of copyright. But I can’t think of a better defence for it than pointing to the IA and saying is that what you really want? That authors can’t demand payment for their work?
- Retric 2y agoYou skipped the “even slightly” bit. Piracy is very much anything goes. People post “commentary streams” where someone else’s YouTube video or even whole movies are shown in their entirety and there’s basically zero backlash from millions of fans. From what I can see the vast majority of Americans take no issue with what IA did.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> what I can see the vast majority of Americans take no issue with what IA did Because nobody noticed outside a narrow slice of tech and media. When people are polled on copyright, no copyright is never more than a niche.
- Retric 2y agoRevealed preferences say otherwise. If the general public shoplifted as frequently as they pirated content convince stores wouldn’t exist. Most people respect private property on some level, but copyright just doesn’t get that same respect.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> Revealed preferences say otherwise I’ve pirated content. That doesn’t mean I believe copyright should be eliminated. There is widespread dissatisfaction with our current system of copyright. That doesn’t imply support for abolishment.
- 2y ago
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y agoThe courtroom isn't the place. Congress is.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> courtroom isn't the place. Congress is The courts can be. But you have to be strategic.
- DoctorOetker 2y agoIf attempting systemic change had been their goal, they could have done plenty of other things: decentralize their dataset, with some distributed hash table, and a minimalistic blockchain for it (yes, yawn) provide randomized signatures by themselves AND gather them from provably randomly selected participants of each page served, in order to testify a page showed specific claims/content at a certain date / time. and so on ... If the internet archive comes crashing down, at least the user base that relied on such services (or whatever simulacra they appeared to manifest) can band together and make such things happen properly, whereas the network effect was all usurped by the IA we know (and love or hate). i.e. those who secure the status quo may regret allowing some greedy "publishers" to deconstruct an excellent fata morgana, the problem with deception is that some parts of the system start believing the overt purpouse of the covert behavior of other parts of the same system. just look at how the soviet union spontaneously imploded.
- miki123211 2y agoSomebody should, but it should be somebody else, with less to lose. Whether IA is morally right or wrong here is completely irrelevant. They undertook an activity which had significant legal risks attached, and that might undermine their future web archiving efforts. THe IA might believe that they are morally and legally in the right here, but they should have at least predicted that, with copyright law being what it is, the courts could be "wrong" and believe otherwise. It feels like they don't see the difference between believing that they are right and assuming that everybody else shares this belief.
- jampekka 2y agoOr maybe they have some goals beyond providing whiny entitled users temporary conveniencies for no profit or personal gain?
- lupusreal 2y agoYeah, I am finding it very hard to forgive them for falling in with the "covid suspends the normal rules" hysteria. They still have a chance to salvage the situation if they start exfiltrating their hard drives to a country not on friendly terms with the western IP regime, but time is running out.
- jampekka 2y agoCovid suspended a lot of normal rules, but those that could affect massive accumulations of wealth are of course not to be touched under any circumstances.
- you_should_die 2y ago[flagged]
- lupusreal 2y agoIt didn't suspend the rules, it only made a lot of people feel entitled to break the rules. Those with power will never be held accountable for the various rules they broke, but those without that kind of privilege will be paying for what they did. Archive.org falls into the latter.
- jampekka 2y agoLockdowns and attire and medication mandates weren't suspending normal rules? Their necessity can be argued for, but they clearly and dramatically suspended very fundamental liberties and rights.
- torstenvl 2y agoNo. They violated them. There's a difference.
- AwaAwa 2y agoDepressing that in this 'enlightened' age, this statement is the closest to closure we will ever have for all the in-plain-sight rule breaking by the powers that be. Technology, the great equalizer, except when it's not. Mostly not.
- ranger_danger 2y agoThey were lending out digital copies long before covid. And like the author says, they house and freely distribute one of the largest collections of pirated software on the planet (my guess is Usenet is #1). What Lunduke didn't mention is that Jason Scott et al actively encourage users to "upload first and don't even ask questions later", so they are complicit in all of this. To me that sounds like even more damning evidence of conspiracy to commit mass copyright infringement.
- skeaker 2y agoWell no, that's not evidence, that's an accusation with no source.
- ranger_danger 2y agoI qualified my statement with "that sounds like", because this is not a courtroom and I am not a lawyer or judge. My source is my own personal chat logs with him on Discord, but I have also seen him post basically the same thing in other places too. I know there's more but here's one quick thing I found https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D14y1t43FIk&t=1446s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D14y1t43FIk&t=1446s Basically he says people ask him "why don't you ask before allowing copyrighted content to be made available" and his reply is something to the effect of "because it's too much work". Earlier in the same video he also clearly shows a huge disdain for copyright in general and laughs at people asking him to take things down. Another https://youtu.be/rW7w7ZphM3Y?t=2368 https://youtu.be/rW7w7ZphM3Y?t=2368