←back to thread

335 points coloneltcb | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.62s | source
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
gs17 ◴[] No.45303001[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 #
1. TimorousBestie ◴[] No.45304002[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 #
2. gs17 ◴[] No.45304300[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 #
3. ◴[] No.45304673[source]