Most active commenters
  • TimorousBestie(3)
  • NemoNobody(3)

←back to thread

335 points coloneltcb | 15 comments | | HN request time: 0.85s | source | bottom
Show context
tokai ◴[] No.45301814[source]
There is so much pirated material on Internet Archive. They have so many movies with titles directly from the warez groups. I don't think they are done getting in trouble sadly.
replies(3): >>45301963 #>>45302708 #>>45303337 #
1. Palomides ◴[] No.45301963[source]
it's frustrating that so many people use the internet archive as pirate file hosting for things that are easy to find elsewhere (legally or otherwise)

it jeopardizes all of their other missions and access to otherwise inaccessible media

replies(3): >>45302043 #>>45302044 #>>45303212 #
2. 999900000999 ◴[] No.45302043[source]
It really needs to be at least 2 different organizations.

Preserve the internet, store old websites.

Everything else. The whole "Emergency Lending Library" situation was just strange. A random non government organization can just declare copyright unfair and distribute whatever they want ?

And they acted surprised when the book industry reacted ?

replies(2): >>45302051 #>>45303055 #
3. TimorousBestie ◴[] No.45302044[source]
On the other hand, it doesn’t particularly matter what legal material the Internet Archive makes available; the various media companies will still attempt to sue them into nonexistence. How much “fair use” you’re entitled to in the states these days is merely a function of how big your legal budget is.
4. TimorousBestie ◴[] No.45302051[source]
> The whole "Emergency Lending Library" situation was just strange.

That was adjudicated years ago, and has nothing to do with the case at hand.

replies(1): >>45303001 #
5. gs17 ◴[] No.45303001{3}[source]
It's related, it demonstrates the IA's attitude toward copyright and how it's already gotten them into trouble. The huge amount of pirate content seems to largely fly under the radar, but the Library was advertising that they're not going to respect copyright and it puts the website archives at risk.
replies(2): >>45304002 #>>45310359 #
6. NemoNobody ◴[] No.45303055[source]
I thought that made them heroes - tbh, I think they thought we would save them from this - ppl don't remember goodwill like that long enough tho - haha, your trying pass it off as shade.

Amazon, the largest profiter of digital book media - they definitely got theirs during the pandemic, you don't actually need to have their back - they profited so much, during and off of, out hard times, to then do this, haha - I'll always back the IA.

I could watch the IA upload the entire series of the expanse to their front page and had no issue at all with that.

Tbh - I think the big corpos should HAVE TO subsidize the IAs existence - with no strings, so they should pay the IA to give away their shit - that is my official position.

replies(1): >>45303241 #
7. NemoNobody ◴[] No.45303212[source]
I think the majority of infringing was uploaded by the labels themselves. I believe that, without evidence contrary - like you know, what should actually be happening if this was actually bad, but like someone already addressed - I don't know that they lost a dime when the labels uploaded the labels copy written music.

How much did they lose again? Where did that number come from?

Say what you will - no actual consumer that operates under actual capitalism would piss us off this much - but they can do whatever they want tho.

I will never see fault with the IA for any of this.

replies(1): >>45304267 #
8. 999900000999 ◴[] No.45303241{3}[source]
OK.

You don't believe in copyright.

It still would of made more sense to create a separate legal entity ( maybe based out of someplace with different copyright laws), if that's what they wanted to do.

Imagine you have a lemonade stand, all is well. The local health inspector is cool with it even though you don't have a permit.

Your cousin asks you if he can start selling raw milk. If you say ok fine, and sell it at the same stand the local health inspector is well within reason to shut you down.

Why couldn't your cousin start up his own stand ?

As is, I think having all of this concentrated in one entity like IA is a really bad idea. It should be distributed across a dozens of organizations, and dozens of countries.

replies(1): >>45303536 #
9. NemoNobody ◴[] No.45303536{4}[source]
I actually believe in copyright. Of you write a book and use Amazon to host - THEY own that book now, they will make all decisions about it's distributions and how much you will get for your cut (Only 30% is what Amazon pays put for digital book creators) - if I don't like that, they will bully me, or you, or the entire industry of authors - Amazon will always win, BC of those copyright laws actually.

So... yeah, copyright is largely bullshit - look at LLMs - Facebook downloaded ALL OF EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE EVER MADE - to build maybe the mot profitable thing ever.. yeah, totes fine for them and that industry to do all that "theft"

Haha - is that not a joke?

I'm assuming your a Zoomer and I'm sorry they got to all of you so much, but no need to feel any guilt from piracy, that isn't actual theft, theft takes away from - this does not do that, it just makes a copy.

Marketing made these morals of yours Bud - you wouldn't have them otherwise

replies(1): >>45303722 #
10. wizzwizz4 ◴[] No.45303722{5}[source]
You're not responding to the comment you're replying to.
11. TimorousBestie ◴[] No.45304002{4}[source]
> The huge amount of pirate content seems to largely fly under the radar,

That’s literally how copyright enforcement works in the United States, it’s not specific to IA. Every user-submitted content publishing site is rife with piracy.

> but the Library was advertising that they're not going to respect copyright

A gross misreading of their stated intentions.

> and it puts the website archives at risk.

The archives are probably also not fair use in the present legal environment. They just happen to not to contain anything valuable enough for a big media company to get litigious. Yet.

replies(1): >>45304300 #
12. badlibrarian ◴[] No.45304267[source]
> I think the majority of infringing was uploaded by the labels themselves

In this case Brewster and his friend personally uploaded 400,000 records to the archive and then made them available for unlimited download. Not just rare stuff, but Frank Sinatra records and the best selling single of all time.

Archiving is cool (and supposedly their charter) but they ignored the Music Modernization Act which made what they claim they were trying to do legal, including unlimited downloads. They blogged about how great it was, how it made old things effectively Fair Use for libraries, then ignored it.

Why? They wanted to get paid for distributing other people's stuff without permission. That's not cool, especially at the scale they were operating. As with the book lawsuit, they were asked nicely to remove certain items and picked an impossible to win fight instead. And lost again.

The reason to find fault with IA is that these actions and decisions put the whole operation at risk. Their recent financials show negative three million dollars in total assets and they're already running on a shoestring. No datacenter, just hard drives sitting out in a building with no air conditioning.

It's ok to love a thing, the spirit behind a thing, yet also admit that it's being run into the ground by unqualified people making terrible decisions.

13. gs17 ◴[] No.45304300{5}[source]
> A gross misreading of their stated intentions.

Not really, they just kind of made up an "emergency" exemption. Their FAQ, instead of saying what legal precedent they were operating under, handwaves it away with a quote from a paper on libraries in general. I'm a fan of them, but they really open themselves up to liability a lot more than necessary.

replies(1): >>45304673 #
14. ◴[] No.45304673{6}[source]
15. braiamp ◴[] No.45310359{4}[source]
> It's related, it demonstrates the IA's attitude toward copyright and how it's already gotten them into trouble

Then why the case makes no reference to that?