3 ms·

Open source projects like Relisten [1] depend on the Internet Archive for long term storage of legally recorded concerts from artists like the Grateful Dead, kn

Open source projects like Relisten [1] depend on the Internet Archive for long term storage of legally recorded concerts from artists like the Grateful Dead, known for their unique concert experiences. This is an invaluable public service for millions of music fans and a boon to American history and culture. [1] https://relisten.net https://relisten.net

krick 2y ago
Look, don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of copyright violation. But every time something like this pops up my instant reaction is that Internet Archive are inflicting this on themselves. They are aiming to provide storage service for legally recorded concerts? Great. This should be a separate project, partnered and advertised, but formally unrelated to IA "backup the internet" thing. They are aiming to be a huge online library that allows you to "legally" borrow books? Great, let it be another separate project. Internet Archive has enough problems on its own, there's no need to keep loading all sorts of obviously dangerous initiatives on top of it.
- brians 2y ago
  I used to agree. But—Part of what they’re working towards is a demonstration that librarians are gonna do stuff like this, and shouldn’t have to do defensive organizational engineering about their archival projects.
  - MichaelZuo 2y ago
    What does this mean? Credibility doesn’t fall from the sky… it has to actually be earned by someone or groups of someones. Usually in the course of their decisions and activities. Librarians don’t magically start off with an unlimited amount of it, such that they can completely ignore these considerations, and experience no consequences. Even if they truly are all the most amazing, wonderful, honorable people on Earth, their credibility would still be depleteable.
    - card_zero 2y ago
      It means, archivists are gonna archive stuff. What does what you said mean? "Credibility"? Is that some kind of apologetics for lawyers hunting for copyright infringements?
      - MichaelZuo 2y ago
        Who gets to define ‘archivist’? Clearly not pseudonymous accounts on HN, nor can it be self declared otherwise 8 billion people can declare themselves to be ‘archivists’.
        antisthenes 2y ago
        > nor can it be self declared otherwise 8 billion people can declare themselves to be ‘archivists’. And why not? As far as I know, there is no barrier to entry to archiving things for your personal use from publically available websites. Or are we talking about people who archive for public use?
        MichaelZuo 2y ago
        I'm referring to the type that does receive additional privileges.
- Cthulhu_ 2y ago
  Would it be easy for funding given to the Internet Archive to be transferred to a separate project (under its own legal umbrella)? Second, I don't know much about charities or whatever legal form the IA and co fall under, but I do recall they need to have a board of representatives; is it legal for the same people to be on that board for multiple related charities? I can imagine adding more leadership to different charities becomes challenging.

krick 2y ago

Look, don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of copyright violation. But every time something like this pops up my instant reaction is that Internet Archive are inflicting this on themselves. They are aiming to provide storage service for legally recorded concerts? Great. This should be a separate project, partnered and advertised, but formally unrelated to IA "backup the internet" thing. They are aiming to be a huge online library that allows you to "legally" borrow books? Great, let it be another separate project. Internet Archive has enough problems on its own, there's no need to keep loading all sorts of obviously dangerous initiatives on top of it.

brians 2y ago
I used to agree. But—Part of what they’re working towards is a demonstration that librarians are gonna do stuff like this, and shouldn’t have to do defensive organizational engineering about their archival projects.
- MichaelZuo 2y ago
  What does this mean? Credibility doesn’t fall from the sky… it has to actually be earned by someone or groups of someones. Usually in the course of their decisions and activities. Librarians don’t magically start off with an unlimited amount of it, such that they can completely ignore these considerations, and experience no consequences. Even if they truly are all the most amazing, wonderful, honorable people on Earth, their credibility would still be depleteable.
  - card_zero 2y ago
    It means, archivists are gonna archive stuff. What does what you said mean? "Credibility"? Is that some kind of apologetics for lawyers hunting for copyright infringements?
    - MichaelZuo 2y ago
      Who gets to define ‘archivist’? Clearly not pseudonymous accounts on HN, nor can it be self declared otherwise 8 billion people can declare themselves to be ‘archivists’.
      - antisthenes 2y ago
        > nor can it be self declared otherwise 8 billion people can declare themselves to be ‘archivists’. And why not? As far as I know, there is no barrier to entry to archiving things for your personal use from publically available websites. Or are we talking about people who archive for public use?
        MichaelZuo 2y ago
        I'm referring to the type that does receive additional privileges.
Cthulhu_ 2y ago
Would it be easy for funding given to the Internet Archive to be transferred to a separate project (under its own legal umbrella)? Second, I don't know much about charities or whatever legal form the IA and co fall under, but I do recall they need to have a board of representatives; is it legal for the same people to be on that board for multiple related charities? I can imagine adding more leadership to different charities becomes challenging.