There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Grass ,

what does warrior do? The git readme seems to just be setup instructitons

antonim ,

Yeah I’m wondering as well. It seems to save webpages, whereas the issue is with scanned books which may be removed from IA…

fossilesque OP ,
@fossilesque@mander.xyz avatar

click wiki link in readme: wiki.archiveteam.org/index.php?title=ArchiveTeam_…

Parabola ,

If only the readme clearly said what it was with a link you could click…

AllNewTypeFace ,
@AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space avatar

I wonder who’ll end up buying the archive.org domain and what they’ll use it for

norimee ,

The archive isn’t completely dead with that yet. There is still a lot of free domain stuff and private uploads on there. A lot of public records too.

And I think you can’t just randomly buy a .org domain, can you? You have to be officially a nonprofit.

I remember for example couchsurfing had to change from a .org to .com when their tax exempt status was rejected by the irs and they went for profit.

calebegg ,

You definitely can just buy a .org, I own multiple.

MigratingtoLemmy ,

If OpenAI can get away with going through copy-righted material, then the answer to piracy is simple: round up a bunch of talented Devs from the internet who are writing and training AI models, and let’s make a fantastic model trained on what the internet archive has. Tell you what, let Mistral’s engineers lead that charge, and put an AGPL license on the project so that companies can’t fuck us over.

I refuse to believe that nobody has thought of this yet

General_Effort ,

What do you think Mistral trains its models on? Public domain stuff?

fossilesque OP ,
@fossilesque@mander.xyz avatar

Direct link to the court document: …courtlistener.com/…/gov.uscourts.ca2.60988.306.1…

roguetrick ,

Side note: court listener’s RECAP is often quite disliked by the legal system. They do not like it when people put stuff from PACER fee waved sources on there like Aaron Schwartz did. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Law_Project

NotAnotherLemmyUser ,

Woah, I wish I had known about this sooner. Thanks!

metaStatic ,

“We are reviewing the court’s opinion and will continue to defend the rights of libraries to own, lend, and preserve books.”

Unpopular opinion: They stepped out of their fucking lane. There are already laws that protect actual libraries, in fact most nations have laws to ensure libraries have access to all locally published works.

One good thing to come of this is I've now joined my national and local libraries.

SkaveRat ,

Agreed. While a noble cause, it was honestly predictable.

I don’t understand why they did that. Their status was already quite shaky. They really shot themselves and their users in the foot

ArchRecord ,

The Internet Archive is a library.

Not only are they a member of the Boston Library Consortium, but their entire operation is based around preserving not just webpages, but books, and other forms of media.

They even offer loans of various materials to and from other libraries, and digitize & archive works from the Library of Congress, the Smithsonian, the New York Public Library, and more.

To say the Internet Archive isn’t an “actual library,” and has “stepped out of their fucking lane” is ridiculous.

This ruling doesn’t just affect the Internet Archive, it affects every single other library out there that wants to lend ebooks, and digitize their existing physical copies of books for digital lending.

conciselyverbose ,

Other libraries have licenses. And follow them.

Internet archive digitized actual books and lent out copies (which was already 100% not legal under current law), then thought it was a good idea to just say “fuck it” and remove the thin veil of legitimacy that kept publishers from caring too much by removing the “one copy at a time per book” policy and daring the publishers to do something about it.

ArchRecord ,

They removed the one copy rule temporarily, during the pandemic, it’s now in place again. But the publishers have made any digitized lending illegal, not just more than one copy, any digitized lending. It is now illegal for them to scan and distribute even one single copy of any book.

It was never a problem with the single-copy restriction, and the publishers didn’t bring up that restriction at all as the purpose of the suit, instead attacking the entirety of scanning & lending, even using Controlled Digital Lending (CDL) systems, like the Internet Archive, and other libraries use.

Even regardless of that, the First-sale Doctrine enables all existing secondary markets for copyrighted material. It’s how you can lend a book to a friend, sell a used book after you’re finished it, or swap copies of a video game on disk with somebody.

The Internet Archive is included in this. Changing the method of distribution (lending a digital copy vs a physical copy) has no functional distinction, and the publishers in the lawsuit were not able to demonstrate material harm, instead just stating that it wasn’t “fair use,” and should thus be illegal, regardless of the fact that they weren’t harmed by the supposedly non-fair use.

And on top of that, fuck the law if it’s unjust. I don’t care if it’s supposedly (even if not true) “100% not legal under current law” to do, it should be, and this ruling is unjust.

conciselyverbose ,

Any digitized lending was always illegal.

The law was abundantly clear. You cannot distribute wholesale copies of someone else’s work. Publishers didn’t bother because the scale was small and they didn’t want to take the PR hit for a scale that didn’t matter.

The first sale doctrine, necessarily, can only possibly apply to a physical object. There is no such thing as a “single copy” of a digital object. Every time that “single copy” moves is a new copy. There is no legal framework in the US that even acknowledges the premise of a digital copy. It’s always a license.

You need new laws to apply to the digital world. There is absolutely zero room for ambiguity that what the Internet archive did never in any way was protected. This ruling was a literal guarantee the minute the Internet Archive removed their (unambiguously not in any way legal) pretense of a “single copy”. There isn’t a court in the country that would even consider ruling any other way, because the law is well beyond clear. This ruling happened because the Internet Archive forced it to happen. If they had left open mass scale piracy to pirate sites they would have been fine.

If their lawyers advised them that there was even a possibility that this argument could work, they should be disbarred. They would be better off spending their money on lobbying for better laws than pursuing a case less likely than winning the power ball jackpot 5 draws in a row.

ArchRecord ,

Any digitized lending was always illegal.

the law is well beyond clear.

I think Title 17, Chapter 108 of the U.S. Code would beg to differ.Digitized lending was always allowed, especially for libraries and archives. The only ambiguous part was the number of copies allowed to be digitized of any individual work, (many of the books the Internet Archive digitized only had one copy digitized and lent at any given time) so most of what the Internet Archive engaged in was fully legal under this code, and only a fraction of the 500 million titles that are now illegal to lend would have been affected, even though all 500 million can now not be legally lent due to this ruling.

You need new laws to apply to the digital world.

True, we can agree on that. We need new laws. Until that point, no change will happen if the boundaries are not pushed.

I guarantee you there hasn’t been anywhere near the current level of momentum for the rights of libraries to lend digitized books any time prior to this court case. If the Internet Archive hadn’t done it in the first place, we would be in the same situation we’re in after this ruling.

Them doing so pushes the issue forward.

This ruling was a literal guarantee the minute the Internet Archive removed their (unambiguously not in any way legal) pretense of a “single copy”

As I’ll say again, this was not the premise under which the publishers won this case. They won the case under the premise that any digitized lending was not transformative, and thus not “fair use,” even though it’s legal under other statutes. The number of copies held no bearing on the ruling.

conciselyverbose , (edited )

Literally every digital “loan” is multiple separate, unrecoverable copies. That law is not about digital lending and cannot be applied to digital lending.

All digital lending of copyrighted material without an explicit license to do so is copyright infringement, and it was always a guarantee that the ruling would happen.

The removal of the “single copy” lie isn’t relevant to the legal status. It’s relevant because it forced the hands of the publishers to take action. There was never any possibility of any ruling but the obvious blanket “you can’t do that” that the law dictates, once IA forced them to take it to court.

ArchRecord ,

That law is not about digital lending and cannot be applied to digital lending.

That’s provably incorrect.

“it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archives […] to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work”

Title 17, USC 101 defines a copy as “…material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device…”

Digital replication falls under the legal definition of copying in the US Code, and is directly cited in the prior section of the code I reference in my last reply.

The Internet Archive’s loans also utilize DRM, a standard kind of software used by every other library out there to restrict further replication of copies. This same technology is in use with libraries who have contracts with publishers to directly download and publish digital copies of non-printed ebooks, which would violate that contract by not using DRM. The Internet Archive, without any express contract from publishers, is still implementing the strongest measures of protection that the publishers themselves would require whether or not content was directly licensed from them instead of being scanned in from a physical copy.

It’s relevant because it forced the hands of the publishers to take action.

Nothing forced them to do anything. These publishers voluntarily decided to file a lawsuit because of mounting pressure from libraries as a collective to stop charging insanely high prices on ebook rentals from publishers, which they saw as being undermined by the fact that the Internet Archive was able to still pay for the books in question, but lend them out in the same manner that physical books are already lent, just through a screen.

As I mentioned before, if the Internet Archive had never done this in the first place, public outcry would be practically nonexistent, and the Internet Archive wouldn’t be lending out those books at all, just like they’re not legally able to now. There is no difference to if they had or had not done this, other than the fact that it is now more visible in the public sphere, and has active legal challenges instead of being quietly subverted by regulation and practices publishers have continued to mount against all libraries to re-establish what it means to own a copyrighted work.

conciselyverbose ,

It is literally impossible to send a file over the internet with no more than one copy. Every additional “loan” is multiple additional copies. Even if we ignore that, you’re very conveniently ignoring the “material objects” part of that definition, which again, completely and unconditionally disqualifies a loan over the internet.

DRM is entirely irrelevant. It has no bearing on anything.

They filed a lawsuit because IA flagrantly and egregiously violated their rights. They openly fucking dared them to. And now they don’t get ignored on their limited copy illegal lending and can’t get away with any copies.

ArchRecord ,

you’re very conveniently ignoring the “material objects” part of that definition

I’m not, it’s just that the wording of the definition could lead to you interpreting it as such. It does not mean what you think it means.

In essence, it’s saying that if a material object is “fixed” (under copyright law, that tends to mean captured in a medium that allows it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated) it is considered a copy. Copyright law generally considers things like written texts (i.e. transcribing a book onto other sheets of paper) to be copies, but it also includes things like recordings, which are very much nontangible. (although still stored on tangible hardware) Also, note the “either directly or with the aid of a machine or device” section of that description.

DRM is entirely irrelevant. It has no bearing on anything.

The fact you consider DRM to be irrelevant in a conversation about managing legal access to digitally distributed content shows a lot about your understanding of this topic, to say the least.

DRM is highly relevant. If it were not, then all libraries would already be illegally publishing copies under the agreements they sign with publishers when they distribute books through DRM-protected applications like Overdrive or Libby. Legal consequence also does not extend past the original publisher if the intent was clearly not to deliberately allow for further copying. (i.e. if the Internet Archive stated they lent books so users could copy them and later share them with friends, that would be a violation. Instead, they have loan terms, limits, and DRM)

If anything done by a user after the lending of any material, outside of reasonable safeguards (like DRM) was to be considered illegal, then any store would be liable if someone used a kitchen knife to kill someone, and any chemical distributor would be liable if someone in a lab mixed the wrong chemicals together and made an explosion. Liability has an end point, and DRM helps signify that by placing technical restrictions on redistribution of material, while also carrying heavy legal penalties for breaking it, which would not be present if it wasn’t applied in the first place.

Publishers should not be able to sue libraries for lending their books, digital, physical, or otherwise. Especially when the publishers could not demonstrate any material harm.

You are actively defending multi-billion dollar publishing companies suing a library for lending content they legally acquired, using faulty interpretations of the law, and deference to lawsuits as a means of judging the morality of actions. You haven’t made a single point that wasn’t either verifiably untrue, or misinformed.

I would advise you to reevaluate your position.

conciselyverbose ,

DRM is relevant to the legal redistribution because that is part of the terms of their license agreement and for no other reason. Their entire lending practice of digital copies is legal because, and only because, they have contracts that specifically determine how they may do so.

It does not in any way alter the nature of blatant illegal copies. It does not make every loan not multiple distinct illegal copies.

I’m actively opposing people telling insane, completely unhinged lies that aren’t even loosely connected to reality to validate a position that every single person with a shred of common sense knew was going to get laughed out of court the day they did it and did get laughed out of court. If you tried this case a million times, Internet Archive wouldn’t have a chance in any of them.

Petition for changes to the law. Don’t lie and pretend the law says what you want it to.

Hydra_Fk ,

How’s them boots taste? Can you taste your corporate overlords butthole?

conciselyverbose ,

How about, instead of throwing a tantrum about the courts doing the only thing they had any authority to do, you spend your efforts lobbying to fix IP law?

Hydra_Fk ,

Yeah because that has ever changed anything. I’ll just keep voting harder while I’m at it.

Aatube , (edited )

Really unfortunate. I wonder why nobody foresaw this when they started the stupid NEL thing.

Edit: NEL is the thing where the Archive removed all borrowing restrictions except 10 books per account and some sort of basic verification that you were in the US

masterspace ,

Fuck Copyright.

A system for distributing information and rewarding it’s creators should not be one based on scarcity, given that it costs nothing to copy and distribute information.

snooggums ,
@snooggums@midwest.social avatar

It was fine when the limited duration was a reasonable number of years. Anything over 30 years max before being in the public domain is too long.

Tilgare ,

Thanks, Disney.

Fuzzy_Red_Panda ,

Yeah. In a better world where the US court system doesn’t get weaponized and rulings aren’t delayed for years or decades, I would argue 8 to 15 years is the reasonable number, depending on the type of information being copyrighted.

DrCake ,

So when’s the ruling against OpenAI and the like using the same copyrighted material to train their models

Anyolduser ,

Hot on the heels of this one, I’d imagine.

shrugs ,

So, let’s say we create an llm that will be fed will all the copyrighted data and we design it, so that it recalls the originals when asked?! Does that count as piracy or as the kind of legal shananigans openai is doing?

iAmTheTot ,

Fat chance. Line must go up.

wizblizz ,

Aaaaaany minute now.

irotsoma ,
@irotsoma@lemmy.world avatar

But OpenAI not being allowed to use the content for free means they are being prevented from making a profit, whereas the Internet Archive is giving away the stuff for free and taking away the right of the authors to profit. /s

Disclaimer: this is the argument that OpenAI is using currently, not my opinion.

norimee ,

Ah, I see you got that all wrong.

Open IA uses that content to generate billions in profit on the backs of The People. The Internet Archive just does it for the good of The People.

We can’t have that. “Good for The People” is not how the economy works, pal. We need profit and exploitation for the world to work…

JackGreenEarth ,

Another sad day for pro-preservation advocates

fpslem ,

Not a surprise, but still somehow crushing. It’s a loss for us all.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •