The legal ruling against the Internet Archive has come down in favour of the rights of authors.

    • Stumblinbear@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      They only issue here is that they stopped following the “one book one rental” rule. You’re allowed to “rent” out a digital copy but only if you have a physical version of the book not lent out. They stopped doing that during covid

      • Sanity_in_Moderation@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well then we should donate books to the Archive. Then in the interests of efficiency and cutting down on storage and transportation costs. I volunteer my home to store my newly donated books. If I ever need them back, I will request them.

      • StarshipLazy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I believe even “one book one rental” was kind of a gray area. Publishers probably didn’t sue at the time as the potential ruling was less certain, and they didn’t want a precedent not in their favour.

    • Ubermeisters@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      253
      ·
      1 year ago

      I wonder if you would feel that way if you were one of the artists whose copyrighted media was distributed illegally?

      • candyman337@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        186
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        You realize this is about books right? This is about free and easy access to books. Like a digital library. Don’t be ridiculous.

            • damndotcommie@lemmy.basedcount.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              140
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah, you have completely changed my mind here. I am uploading all my work to github and all my pics as we speak for everyone to use as they please. Give me a break. Are you really that childish in person, or is it just the screen and keyboard giving you this false machismo?

              • candyman337@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                97
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I’m not being childish, you’re being ridiculous. This is a library, this is a concept that already exists. You’re thinking too profit oriented, not everything has to be for profit. This is so that people have access to these things now and for generations to come. Copyright laws compromising the internet archive will mean loss of data over the next few generations. There is already so much lost media from the internet era, and so little is being done about it, aside from the awesome efforts of the internet archive.

                This isn’t about profits this is about preserving data from our era.

                There’s more to this argument but it’s already been said in this thread and I don’t feel like typing it out, and I doubt you’d change your mind anyway.

              • Tocano@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                34
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                you are taking this to the extreme without considering what you are saying. it is true that authors should be rewarded for their efforts to produce a piece of writting or art. however, sometimes some authors and publishers choose to hide this content, which may be useful when accessible by the larger community. imagine if certain inventions were not made public by their inventors. the entire race would still be living in the stone age.

                • candyman337@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  36
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  This is actually happening with certain things that are patented or prohibitively expensive. I.E. insulin. A LOT of more efficient eco-friendly tech has just not been adopted because it’s patented and it wouldn’t be cost effective for companies to switch in our profit driven capitalist hellscape.

              • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                17
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I’m also a dev. I do upload my work other than my day job work since it’s my employers copyright not mine. You can check out my GitHub which is the same as my username here.

                Regardless though, libraries have existed for decades in the real world - but suddenly in a digital form it’s some unimaginable and unforgivable thing? Give me a break.

          • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            35
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You might not familiar with how the internet archive does the book lending. The book is actually drm-protected and can only be opened with adobe software, which will expire in just a few days, rendering the file useless. What the internet archive did was simply allowing more people to borrow the same book during pandemic instead of only allowing one person at a time. The lent books still expire after a few days. It’s not like the internet archive was suddenly turn into LibGen and distributing unlocked pdf to anyone. Anyone who familiar with LibGen would not bother borrowing from the internet archive digital library. The issue is simply blown up out of proportion by publishers.

          • Takumidesh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I write software. I am legally bound to not release source code for the things I do for work.

            However all of the software that I write that is not required to be closed source, is not.

      • auth@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        68
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The problem is that copyright last way to fucking long and they keep extending it. It should be the same as patents… 15 years I think. I’m just going to keep xdcc get whatever I want until they fix it.

        • Ubermeisters@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          I agree, but the internet archive doesn’t have the authority to roll the duration back right? So it was illegal. We all agree the law needs to change, but it is still the law currently.

        • damndotcommie@lemmy.basedcount.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          67
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well the average career is 30 years. So you think that if I was to start a photography business that at the end of my 30 year run, half of my career should be publicly available? That means that people could use half of my life’s work without owing me any compensation? Copyright protects a lot of small creators, not just Disney and the likes.

            • Trail@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              16
              ·
              1 year ago

              So if you release a movie that took you 5 years to make, you only get paid on the day it is released. Not the next day, because you should not get paid for doing nothing due to work you did in the past. Keep working. Gotcha.

              • escapesamsara@discuss.online
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yes, absolutely. If it takes me a year to make a high-quality table, then I shouldn’t keep getting paid for the table for the rest of my life + 70 years + whatever new extension Disney comes up with.

          • ronalicious@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            22
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            but if your work is good enough and better than your competitors it shouldn’t be a problem. that’s how the free market works right?

            the problem here is capitalists want it both ways. they want to be able litigate any competition into oblivion… but hey, it s just business.

            • damndotcommie@lemmy.basedcount.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              22
              ·
              1 year ago

              Way to sweepingly generalize something. I had to use copyright laws when I was a pro track photographer. I found out that one of the drivers owned a printing shop. He was telling people to purchase one photo from me at my price and then turning around, scanning it in, and re-printing them for the customers at a lower price. Same exact work, so you can’t argue about the quality. This fuck was also taking my images and using them in advertising which was also a copyright violation. This isn’t about who took the better picture as I was the person behind the camera. It’s about protecting work, that in my case involved time and actual sweat each and every weekend I was out in the sun. But it seems the majority of people in this thread think that he was justified in stealing MY work.

              • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                15
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Do people buy your photos decades after you take them? No?

                So reasonable copyright terms like 10 or 15 years should be totally fine with you. Unless you are just emotional about it and ranting online.

              • Glitchington@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                When working at a print shop, we checked for copyright coverage all the time, and even refused orders over it. Watermarking the corner of your images is a good start. You can also make sure your web images are low resolution to prevent reprinting. 300ppi (pixels per inch) at scale is required for printing. Though the real kicker is, YOU are responsible for protecting your copyright, and you probably should have hired a lawyer.

              • Trail@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                I think you gotta keep it mind that, like reddit, a majority of the people here should be assumed to be teens or so.

              • favrion@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                Hey, just here to let you know that I 100% agree with you. You’re being attacked for no reason.

          • auth@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Thats how it works for patents, medicines, etc…

            When someone build a home… There is not even any time at all… You get paid once and then you can forget your past work.

          • yetAnotherUser@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            What percentage of your money would come from 15 year old content you produced? Please reply with the median.

        • ayaya@lemdro.id
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Same here. Every project I have ever worked on is available on github. Even my job open sources its tools.

          • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I just checked out your github. Your python “age guesser” repo and “name guesser” repo are top notch. Your unfinished “street address guesser” looks promising. The internet is thrilled for these three contributions

      • 000999@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well for one, piracy often helps artists by getting their media in the hands of more people, hence more exposure

        • Stumblinbear@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Okay on some level I agree with you, but “paying with exposure” is bullshit. If I like something I’ll pay for it after the fact

      • TeamDman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        How about we implement UBI so we can stop pretending this is a good argument? Copyright is a blight on society.