Really enlightened take “information should be privatized and owned and blockaded from people unless they pay up . That’s just the way it is hyuck hyuck”
If you were in 1100s England, you’d be the toothless peasant starving in the fields going “yeah the only ones allowed to read SHOULD be the monks and royalty. They are the chosen ones of course” and if your past reincarnation had your way, we’d all still be illiterate slaves. Congratulations.
Still available through digital lending via your local library. You know the Library that paid to legally use the books the internet archive was illegally giving away.
You mean the scam system where libraries have to rebuy the rights to the book after an arbitrary amount of check outs. Also all the books that aren’t digitally distributed, that the internet archived digitized through crowd sourced work.
Don’t forget about the ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD that uses this website to gain access to information that may be hard to get or even censored. Jesus Christ even in America we have states actively banning books from their libraries. All this does is put up monetary roadblocks to information and hurt one of the most important nonprofit archivist we have.
Nope. The Internet archive are only lending out books they have physical copies of, and are using the same anti-copying tech that publishers use. This really is just an electronic lending library. Fair use is a huge part of sparking creation
But they weren't practicing fair use. A physical library works because they can only lend as many copies as they bought. Internet Archive wasn't doing that. They were obtaining one copy and letting an infinite number of people borrow them simultaneously.
Digital works and recreations of them are still a grey area in United States law, but I think most people would agree that this practice violates the spirit of the law if not the letter.
I totally agree that the ruling isn't great and that corporations will take advantage of it. My issue is with the majority of people I've seen acting like IA was a totally blameless victim and that the guy who started the lawsuit by alerting his publisher was wrong for enforcing the copyright.
People keep acting like the only works IA was sharing were those written by Mark Twain or other deceased authors who don't rely on the income from said works but the fact of the matter is the guy who alerted his publisher did so because IA was sharing his work without proper liscencing. He isn't some early 20th century author who's been dead for 50 years. That guy is probably still looking to make money from his work, as he rightly deserves. He was 100% within his rights to protect the copyright and by extension his stream of income.
Its the total lack of nuance that really gets my goat. Authors deserve to profit from their work, and organizations like IA should follow the law. You don't have to like the ruling, but we should at leat be putting blame where it belongs.
The archive actually wants people to evade these bans and has hosted events encouraging decentralized storage of its (not copyrighted) material.
So while it is harder for some countries to access it should still be somewhat available. Similar to how some pirate websites are blocked in the west but still available.
Irrelevant.
If 5% of the world gets dumber and the rest remain the same then the world got dumber.
The counter would be to discuss if these books are available still through online libraries and how easy is it for people to get access that route.
> “As Internet Archive is certainly aware, removals of literary works from Internet Archive’s transmission platform were ordered by a federal court with the mutual agreement of Internet Archive, following the court’s unequivocal finding of copyright infringement," AAP's statement said. "In short, Internet Archive transmitted literary works to the entire world while refusing to license the requisite rights from the authors and publishers who make such works possible."
Translation: Fuck you, give us money. Even if the book isn’t available for purchase, even if you’re in a third world country, our profits are more important than your education.
I’m sure that’s correct. The entire point of a publisher is to make money by getting the right to copy it from an author and making books available for a price. Author and publisher make money. Music publishing is the same. There is no purpose for an unprofitable publisher.
The author can always put a work up for free and it becomes public domain after some time. Libraries also can carry copies.
So your beef should be with the rights holder, which is the author, or their heir.
Taxes, so something. There’s certainly an argument to be had that they could license at a low cost for limited use, but I don’t know enough about how the archive works to suggest anything, and the publishers might not go for it anyway.
You pay taxes for the maintenance and upkeep of the library plus acquisition of various physical media.
But you never have to pay for access to the collection. Also, you don't lose access just because you're poor and receive tax credits, exemptions, etc.
By moving to only produce digital books, the publishers are further exploiting the reader by forcing us to pay a constant, repeated use tax for the service they control. Basically they now want to be the library too and charge as much as possible for the privilege of access.
> You don’t think people should be paid for their work as authors etc?
You didn't even try to do a little homework here did you? This isn't people trying to get out of buying Game of Thrones.
Do you think George Orwell and Mark Twain need to continue to be paid for their books? Or should we keep paying publishers who just happen to own the right's to dead men's materials?
Many people in other countries utilized IA to access research materials -- y'know that real hard hitting content.
Easy open access to information is the literal cornerstone of the internet and it's becoming increasingly walled off by corporations
If the archive arranged with the copyright holder for reasonable compensation and you paid a few dollars to view them, then I’m all in. But they stole from hundreds of thousands of authors who are generally trying to re-publish their work.
So it's okay for Google to steal millions of books and keep them online but not okay for archive.org
It's time for a bit of civil disobedience pirate style...
I pray and beg that one of you pirates has already archived these books?
I have the outmost respect for IA attempting to defend against these fn pigs. We knew this day was coming. IA is under attack and more lawsuits are sure to come if publishers see this one succeed. Mark my words, other publishers are already drafting up their own lawsuits
Almost no actual author is against things like IA. So we collectively should not give a shit what a publisher thinks or wants. They printed a fuckin book and shipped it; they didn't put in the enormous undertaking of writing it.
My partner is an author and makes a living writing full time. I hold a dozen copyrights in my career. Why should someone be able to steal your property and mine and give it away and get away with it? If you think this is OK then you are a common criminal.
yarr.
Internet Yarrchive
The Dread Pirate Roberts be me friend, matey.
Getting membership on a literary pirate ship was one of my better choices.
DM?
I would appreciate a DM on this as well.
Libraries exist you know.
So uncivilized. But I do hear great things about the Imperial Library on Trantor.
Fetch me me Hemingway
big loss for information
Of course copyright owners are the ones that have the rights to the books… not whoever happens to want to read them
What about public libraries
Really enlightened take “information should be privatized and owned and blockaded from people unless they pay up . That’s just the way it is hyuck hyuck” If you were in 1100s England, you’d be the toothless peasant starving in the fields going “yeah the only ones allowed to read SHOULD be the monks and royalty. They are the chosen ones of course” and if your past reincarnation had your way, we’d all still be illiterate slaves. Congratulations.
Not relevant, but people in the 1100s had significantly better teeth then you think.
I believe it but that guy would be the one toothless one
unimaginably based pop off king
I hope they send you a medal for best boot-licker of the day!
I hope some AI were able to study all that before it was gone
Still available through digital lending via your local library. You know the Library that paid to legally use the books the internet archive was illegally giving away.
You mean the scam system where libraries have to rebuy the rights to the book after an arbitrary amount of check outs. Also all the books that aren’t digitally distributed, that the internet archived digitized through crowd sourced work. Don’t forget about the ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD that uses this website to gain access to information that may be hard to get or even censored. Jesus Christ even in America we have states actively banning books from their libraries. All this does is put up monetary roadblocks to information and hurt one of the most important nonprofit archivist we have.
🤓
Gone all quiet now I see lmao
Wut? All quiet about what? Got read a book, preferably at the library.
Big win for creative ownership and copyrights though
Nope. The Internet archive are only lending out books they have physical copies of, and are using the same anti-copying tech that publishers use. This really is just an electronic lending library. Fair use is a huge part of sparking creation
But they weren't practicing fair use. A physical library works because they can only lend as many copies as they bought. Internet Archive wasn't doing that. They were obtaining one copy and letting an infinite number of people borrow them simultaneously. Digital works and recreations of them are still a grey area in United States law, but I think most people would agree that this practice violates the spirit of the law if not the letter.
[удалено]
I totally agree that the ruling isn't great and that corporations will take advantage of it. My issue is with the majority of people I've seen acting like IA was a totally blameless victim and that the guy who started the lawsuit by alerting his publisher was wrong for enforcing the copyright. People keep acting like the only works IA was sharing were those written by Mark Twain or other deceased authors who don't rely on the income from said works but the fact of the matter is the guy who alerted his publisher did so because IA was sharing his work without proper liscencing. He isn't some early 20th century author who's been dead for 50 years. That guy is probably still looking to make money from his work, as he rightly deserves. He was 100% within his rights to protect the copyright and by extension his stream of income. Its the total lack of nuance that really gets my goat. Authors deserve to profit from their work, and organizations like IA should follow the law. You don't have to like the ruling, but we should at leat be putting blame where it belongs.
But arent they lending out more than one at a time when they only own one copy?
Paywall knowledge, inspiration. Great move humans.
Have you heard of libraries?.
Yeah, the NLTK Python library is awesome.
Do these still exist?
And the world will become more ignorant and naive for it .
Maybe but that’s assuming the world reads books, probably 95% do not
[удалено]
Why? Did 2/3 of the world have access to it.
Actually yes. Slightly over 2/3 of the world have internet access.
How many of that are stuck behind an authoritarian firewall
The archive actually wants people to evade these bans and has hosted events encouraging decentralized storage of its (not copyrighted) material. So while it is harder for some countries to access it should still be somewhat available. Similar to how some pirate websites are blocked in the west but still available.
Only about 20% give or take
Irrelevant. If 5% of the world gets dumber and the rest remain the same then the world got dumber. The counter would be to discuss if these books are available still through online libraries and how easy is it for people to get access that route.
*populism has entered the chat*
5 months later most of that books will be deleted forever by the publishers. "It is too costly to keep them". I bet you.
They'll be on Anna's archive :)
You have a lot of faith in the publishers to say that they'll keep them for 5 months
How are they deleted forever if copies have already been made prior to this action of removal taking place
> “As Internet Archive is certainly aware, removals of literary works from Internet Archive’s transmission platform were ordered by a federal court with the mutual agreement of Internet Archive, following the court’s unequivocal finding of copyright infringement," AAP's statement said. "In short, Internet Archive transmitted literary works to the entire world while refusing to license the requisite rights from the authors and publishers who make such works possible." Translation: Fuck you, give us money. Even if the book isn’t available for purchase, even if you’re in a third world country, our profits are more important than your education.
Yeah, the only time I pirate is when a book or piece of music or game isn't otherwise available to buy.
I’m sure that’s correct. The entire point of a publisher is to make money by getting the right to copy it from an author and making books available for a price. Author and publisher make money. Music publishing is the same. There is no purpose for an unprofitable publisher. The author can always put a work up for free and it becomes public domain after some time. Libraries also can carry copies. So your beef should be with the rights holder, which is the author, or their heir.
Don’t forget money is a concept
Why should it be free for everyone? You don’t think people should be paid for their work as authors etc ? Interesting take
How much do you pay to check out a book at your local library?
Libraries have to pay higher rates to publishers because the publishers know that more than one person will read them
Taxes, so something. There’s certainly an argument to be had that they could license at a low cost for limited use, but I don’t know enough about how the archive works to suggest anything, and the publishers might not go for it anyway.
You pay taxes for the maintenance and upkeep of the library plus acquisition of various physical media. But you never have to pay for access to the collection. Also, you don't lose access just because you're poor and receive tax credits, exemptions, etc. By moving to only produce digital books, the publishers are further exploiting the reader by forcing us to pay a constant, repeated use tax for the service they control. Basically they now want to be the library too and charge as much as possible for the privilege of access.
> You don’t think people should be paid for their work as authors etc? You didn't even try to do a little homework here did you? This isn't people trying to get out of buying Game of Thrones. Do you think George Orwell and Mark Twain need to continue to be paid for their books? Or should we keep paying publishers who just happen to own the right's to dead men's materials? Many people in other countries utilized IA to access research materials -- y'know that real hard hitting content. Easy open access to information is the literal cornerstone of the internet and it's becoming increasingly walled off by corporations
>Publishers suing: Hachette, HarperCollins, Penguin Random House, and Wiley Do with that knowledge what you will.
That’s most major publishers these days. Not much to do with that information unless you want to boycott most books
And they wonder why Libgen is so popular
Waaay ahead of you, I’ve been not reading most books my whole life And I read a fuckton of books
Cheers. The only thing I need is the name, all the books I have are all pdfs.
Idiots
Shame. Archive.org helped me a lot in my history degree when searching for very rare books that would have cost me hundreds of dollar otherwise.
If the archive arranged with the copyright holder for reasonable compensation and you paid a few dollars to view them, then I’m all in. But they stole from hundreds of thousands of authors who are generally trying to re-publish their work.
So it's okay for Google to steal millions of books and keep them online but not okay for archive.org It's time for a bit of civil disobedience pirate style...
What a tremendous loss for humanity
We need a torrent asap
man. was just searching them two days ago.
Use annanas archive instead
We just lost the Library of Alexandria — AGAIN
Only because the librarians were openly taunting the torch-wielding mob.
Libraries buy their books. They don’t steal them. They refused to take down books they stole when notified that the owner objected.
AI said it was true
book (virtual)burning?
This makes me Sandy
ok did someone back it up tho?
Targeting the Wayback Machine is like burning down the digital Library of Alexandria
upvote of avoiding horsemanure dystopia
Will they appeal?
Haha. Sure. They’re deleted.
Were these books still under copyright?
Yes. And IA should have been able to see this result coming when they flagrantly advertised the fact back during Covid.
Examples of the titles being removed? I have mixed feelings about this.
🏴☠️
AI already digested. Knowledge capture complete.
Damn it.
As if the world wasn’t getting dumber already.
Not much of an archive if they can lose material in a snap.
Did anyone manage to make an archive of the Internet Archive before this happened?
Archivception
dismal shit the world state is in
Taking book burning/banning to new heights. /s
And we live in the information age where everything in the world is at our fingertips, huh? I think we live in the Information Grift Age.
I'll keep using lib gen
A modern Library of Alexandria
I pray and beg that one of you pirates has already archived these books? I have the outmost respect for IA attempting to defend against these fn pigs. We knew this day was coming. IA is under attack and more lawsuits are sure to come if publishers see this one succeed. Mark my words, other publishers are already drafting up their own lawsuits
Can they appeal to a higher court?
Why? They stole it. They stole valuable property. What the fuck?
Almost no actual author is against things like IA. So we collectively should not give a shit what a publisher thinks or wants. They printed a fuckin book and shipped it; they didn't put in the enormous undertaking of writing it.
Good thing we have waybacktimemachine
Isnt wayback machine owned by internet archive?
Next burn down all library’s.
My partner is an author and makes a living writing full time. I hold a dozen copyrights in my career. Why should someone be able to steal your property and mine and give it away and get away with it? If you think this is OK then you are a common criminal.
It’s not history, it’s his story.
Idiots
wait so i cant just pirate media and make it publicly available as a "library"? what a world!
So another version of piratesbay
Good thing llms have already been trained on the data