Privacy

32165 readers

962 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
Don't promote proprietary software
Try to keep things on topic
If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
Be nice :)

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

994

Internet Archive is in danger (www.battleforlibraries.com)

submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

151 comments fedilink hide all child comments

It looks like the internet archive is needed assistance, I just heard about this today and figured lemmy could help spread this message around

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 months ago (2 children)

You're using the publisher's arguments in your comment. If anybody's interested, here's the IA's counter-argument. It boils down to the fact publishers are challenging practices that used to be considered fair use... just because they can.

This decision has wide-reaching implications that will affect all libraries, not just the IA.

Ultimately we'll just have to see what the appeal decision will be.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

In that counter argument they are essentially admitting that 99% of their content was distributed without the copyright holder's consent.

In the CDL lawsuit, they have admitted that of the millions of books we have digitized, they themselves have only made about 33,000 available to libraries; only about 1% of what we have done, and only under restrictive and expensive license agreements. This is, they claim, the essence of their copyright rights: the ability to restrict access to information as they see fit, to further their theoretical economic interests, without regard to libraries traditional functions and the greater public good.

Was it fair use in the past to redistribute reprints/format-conversions of works without the copyright holders consent?

I agree that copyright law sucks.. but that's why it needs to change so it actually serves "the greater public good". The judiciary system is not the right place to advocate for that (they don't make the law, just interpret it), so I don't really think there's much hope in them winning this. Sadly.

[–] chiliedogg 1 points 5 months ago

Their counter-argument isn't a legal argument. They're saying they did it because they think the publishers aren't being fair.

And they're talking mostly about format-conversion, which isn't the problem here.

You can absolutely make format conversions to digital for archival purposes. What you cannot do is them make a bunch of copies and give them away for free simultaneous use. That is not fair use. That's 100% piracy.

The CDL was built specifically to ensure that only one digital copy was on loan for each owned copy of the material because the IA absolutely knew that was the law.