Yet again the Internet Archiving is suffering big this time, a coalition of major record labels filed a lawsuit against the Internet Archive demanding $700 million for the extensive catalog of 78 rpm records. 78s are sometimes more than a century old at this point and i bet a lot of them are out of copyright, but i suppose for the few that still are majors are hitting it big towards the IA
This lawsuit is pretty much another existential threat to the Internet Archive and everything it preserves, including the Wayback Machine, and we’re fucked if we ever lose access to the Wayback Machine.
the original article asked to sign a petition, but i think a more logical way to support is to donate them directly so that they have more money to better defend themselves in court in this and other cases they’ll undoubtedly face in the future
The law is a law. Their aims do not override it. They are getting what any sane person would expect. Nothing prevented them from separating their legal and shady operations to separate entities. That, at least, would prevent compromising the whole operation. If someone puts his head in a lion mouth, it is still his fault, at least partially, that lion kills him.
I doubt this argument will hold in court.
deleted by creator
It’s acting like a library. When the current laws and political systems would prevent libraries being invented now, it’s a sign that the laws are bullshit. Not that libraries are wrong.
I agree that the laws are bad. However, they are still laws. Breaking them has consequences.
The law can be wrong, and it would be cool if the hard work of others is maintained while that’s fixed.
You’re still missing the point tho.
You claimed it was piracy. Piracy is not when you go to a library and listen to something the label doesn’t sell anymore. Piracy is downloading the latest Imagine Dragons slop without paying.
If the library does not have the license or a right, guaranteed by law, to do that, then it is piracy.
US copyright law has been co-opted by corporations for the exclusive profit of corporate copyright holders. Just because a law exists doesn’t mean it is just. Props to the IA for fighting the good fight.
Agree, but breaking the law and putting your whole operation at risk is not a clever nor productive way to fight it.
God forbid they act as if they (or anyone at all by your logic?) have some skin in the game.
It’s called property. You buy a book. You don’t get to copy it, but you get to show it to anyone you want.
Private property is the smallest unit of warfare.
The only books I’ve paid for are the ones where the author explicitly allows copy and free distribution.
Well, those and the ones that get bundled with online access way back in uni.
That’s nice. But why? Do you not miss out on e.g. The Great Gatsby?
How many books have you paid for, and how many does a library have?
Beyond missing the subtext…
I don’t actually read all that much. I’m excruciatingly slow and i don’t currently commute. Most of my reading was on public transit or camping. But the authors i like just happen to either be ok with sharing copies of their work or it’s available for free anyways. That said I’ve bought maybe twenty books in the last decade…
Textbooks from exploitative publishers especially i refuse to pay for. E.g. Wiley, pearson, McGraw-Hill, etc… As well technical publications and journals.
The great Gatsby was provided by school when i read it. All the books were in my k-12. Most the students couldn’t afford them.
And The Great Gatsby was brought to you by a library—your school’s.
Yes?
Did i say something anti-library or am i reading into this wrong?