this post was submitted on 29 May 2024
1673 points (99.6% liked)
Technology
60085 readers
4760 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The problem is that the litigation was entirely "just", as far as the legal system goes. It's an open-and-shut case and everyone saw it coming. The Internet Archive basically stood in front of a train and dared it to turn, and now they're crying the victim. Doesn't exactly entice me to send them donations to cover their lawyers and executives right now.
They really need to admit "okay, so that was a dumb idea, and ultimately not related to archiving the Internet anyway. We're not going to do that again."
Note that I'm not saying the publishers are "good guys" here, I hate the existing copyright system and would love to see it contested. Just not by Internet Archive. Let someone else who's purpose is fighting those fights take it on and stick to preserving those precious archives out of harm's way.
My brother in Christ, they're literally contesting it
Did you read literally the next sentences I wrote after that one? Here they are:
The Internet Archive is like someone carrying around a precious baby. The baby is an irreplaceable archive of historical data being preserved for posterity. I do not want them to go and fight with a bear, even if the bear is awful and needs to be fought. I want them to run away from the bear to protect the baby, while someone else fights the bear. Someone better equipped for bear-fighting, and who won't get that precious cargo destroyed in the process of fighting it.
Who else is better equipped? In my view it would solely depend on the lawyers that internet archive hires, and money plays a big factor in that.
Also, internet archive is going through the route process of how legislation gets overturned or upheld. Just because you perceive them as unworthy to bear the challenge doesn’t make that true, and as a result your commitment to not support them because they aren’t the one true chosen is ill-informed.
The EFF. This kind of thing is why they exist.
The Archive making themselves an easier target was a huge misstep IMO. All it takes is one overreaching judge telling them they need to purge all copyrighted data (a common judgment in lawsuits like this) and the world becomes a worse place.
Realistically, they could just move their servers abroad to a country with less problematic copyright rules and wind up their US operations. It would make no difference to the end user, unless ISPs are also ordered to block access. And even then it'd only be a VPN away.
The risk of total data loss is not zero, but it's also not the likely outcome.
The EFF, for example. Fighting lawsuits for the sake of internet freedom is their reason for being. Sci-hub, for ebooks more specifically. Or Library Genesis. Those are organizations specifically devoted to fighting against excessive copyright restrictions on books.
You're not understanding what I'm saying here. I don't think Internet Archive is unworthy to bear the challenge. I think they're not well suited to it, and when they inevitably lose the lawsuits they've jumped head-first into they're risking damage to other causes that are very important and unrelated to this particular fight.
What makes the internet archive well-equipped for that? They have money from donations? Donations that were more than likely intended for preserving the archive, and not facilitating book piracy in an obviously illegal way that now requires them to piss those donations away in legal fees?
You are simply wrong from the get go. This is the only way it'll ever get addressed, is 100% in the stated purpose of the Internet Archive, the dumb part isn't on the side of preservation efforts, there isn't a separate issue nor is there a separate copyright the publishers are the same with the exact same unsustainable arguments regardless of web page, code, or ebook.
You are making the same mistake made upon a lot of patents, assuming "but on a computer" is somehow transformative.
It literally archives internet pages and files. What do you think the internet archive does if it doesn't do that?
The lawsuit was about them distributing unauthorized copies of books. Not archiving, and not internet pages or files.
And that was exactly the problem.
Your calling files, book documents to be specific, books, doesn't change that IA is storing files, ebooks to be specific, nor that the ruling shall affect all Libraries, which includes the Internet Archive to be specific. And the actual issue, is that the publishers refuse to offer ebooks to Libraries as they assume it'll cost sales when in fact the folks using the Library are there as they are not going to go buy one.
Emphasis added. Storing files is not the problem. Nobody cared when they were just scanning and storing them. The problem arose when they started giving out copies. And worse, giving out copies without restriction - libaries "lend" ebooks by using DRM systems to try to ensure that only a specific number of copies are out "in circulation" at any given time, and so the big publishers have turned a blind eye to that.
Internet Archive basically turned themselves into an ebook Pirate Bay, giving out as many copies as were asked for with no limits.
Again, I don't agree with current copyright laws, I think the big publishers are gigantic heaps of slime and should be burned to the ground. The problem here is that it's not Internet Archive that should be fighting this fight.
Library, look it up. And the publishers always hated Libraries.
Unlimited copies, look it up. Internet Archive's "emergency library" broke the customary limits that other libraries stick to in order to keep publishers off their backs - they were giving out as many copies of a book at once as people were requesting, rather than keeping a limited number "in circulation."
It really was basically just a piracy site all of a sudden. It's absolutely no surprise at all that the publishers came down on them like a ton of bricks.
But libraries do not do that to limit access... (I think, unless there is some kind of copyright law making it necessary to restrict access). Don't they do do that because they have a limited number of book copies that they need to maintain to meet the book lending demands in their area? Seems to me like they are just trying ro maximise people's access to books given the constraints. Any digital library can obviously do this much faster.
Well said. Within the existing framework of copyright law, the emergency open library thing that got them sued seems obviously illegal, despite it being a good thing. What's good and what's legal don't always line up.
The Internet Archive's work is too important. The library portion (that does controlled digital lending of published books) is nice, but I wouldn't be too hurt if it goes down. Regular public libraries can fill a lot of that role. But the archive itself is incredible, and losing that would be a huge shame.
Legally, I don't know that admitting fault and saying sorry does much good, but it certainly isn't surprising that they got into hot water here.
It probably wouldn't help their current lawsuit, at this point. Maybe right at the beginning, before it went to court and they could negotiate a bit in search of a reasonable settlement, but at this point they've already lost it hard.
What it would do is reassure me that they're not going to do something dumb like this in the future, which would make me more willing to donate money to them knowing it'll go to actual internet archiving activities instead of being thrown into big publishers' pockets as part of more lawsuit settlements.
And yet whoever’s doing this evidently doesn’t expect to succeed via legal means.
This subthread switched specifically to the topic of their pending lawsuits, it's not about the DDoS. I doubt the publishers are behind this DDoS because they're already easily winning in the courts, there's absolutely no need for them to risk blowing their case and getting countersued this way.
Because Internet Archive implied a potential connection to the DDoS attack. And given the large-institution scale of the attack and the lack of motivation for any other actors on that scale, it seems like the most plausible explanation.
Edit: And I’m not sure where you’re trying to go with this whole subthread—you tried to narrow the topic exclusively to the legal case by arguing that the case is unrelated to the DDoS attack, while at the same time pointing to the lawsuit to imply that IA had it coming.
Then the Internet Archive is being an idiot and risking a lawsuit. Again. They've already been raked over the coals for copyright violation, I guess they want to add libel to the list as well?
The Internet Archive has plenty of enemies, many of whom don't have an easy legal arsenal to throw at them like those big publishers did. The publishers have been playing smart so far and have won already through legal means, it makes no sense for them to suddenly turn stupid and launch this DDoS.
Then we fuck the train up
Man... These clowns are getting out of line.
I guess we gonna need to torrent harder. Stop feeding the parasite. If you want to support the artist pay them directly and torrent everything.
These clowns owners think they own you and entire human knowledge.
Offshore server farms running on cargoships connecting thru starlink
Peasants gonna need to get rich for this Op
Why not them in particular?
I explained why not in the sentence directly following the one that you quoted. Here it is again:
To explain in more detail: The Internet Archive is custodian to an irreplaceable archive of Internet history and raw data. If they go and get themselves destroyed at the hands of book publishers fighting lawsuits over ebook piracy, that archive is at risk of being destroyed along with them. Or being sold off at whatever going-out-of-business sale they have, perhaps even to those very giant publishers that destroyed them.
That is why not them in particular. Let someone who isn't carrying around that precious archive go and get into fights like this.
That does make sense. They do have "more to lose" in that sense.
Okay well they're being sued for millions of damages? If they just agree to those damages they put themselves at higher risks of losing other court cases and the money to run the site
They're only at risk when they take risky behaviours. Simply archiving the Internet, like they've been doing for years, is not what they got sued over.
If they're going to keep doing the same thing they got sued over then they're going to keep losing court cases, because obviously they are. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. They should stop doing that.
Sure would be nice if these companies could be scared off thus like target and pride month