@@reformed_attempt_11 i dont think you would be able to hold up the site with more than 400 million dollars in debt. 2 they would have to declare bankruptcy.
Well, the headline of the article he shows says "'Giving away what is not yours is simply stealing.' say authors", so it seems like the authors weren't happy about it either. Of course it's going to go through the publisher, though.
Dude libraries pay for books if the internet archive just payed the book companies for a copy then they would be Scott free you clearly don’t get how libraries and late fees work
@nikolaievans2432 Yeah; frankly speaking, if there were at least a couple of agreements between the publishers and the archive, it could have avoided the entire legal battle.
@@nikolaievans2432ah yes qho can I pay for this song thats from 1960 who can I buy this book thats no longer printed? The point of the arxhive is to store whar can no longer be found
@@themount6549On the cost of that book being lost forever? The publishers couldn't give a damn about keeping it alive OR getting payment for it. They just want an excuse to sue.
Copyright has always been an artificial throttle to creativity and progress. Artists don't benefit from it; publishers do, and then underpay artists for their work. Artists without publishers can't afford to sue over copyright infringement. So it's literally a way to suppress creativity and creation at its core.
Disney has delayed public domain, and that's definitely an issue. That doesn't apply to this case, which is more about copying recent works and distributing them on a massive scale without paying the creators/rights holders.
@@Flamingghost1025If IP laws didn't exist, big companies would be able to copy and distribute the works of small creators. Kinda what they're trying to do with AI.
@@Noname304y2u2true, unless there was no possible contact to the owner and everything was anonymous. Mind you, if the owner was found, the repercussions would be even harsher than what was already given.
Dude, they are stealing works undermining the profits of the authors. You are supporting the destruction of small authors. They let the company they license their work to sue because its cheaper for the author and protects the small author
While I do agree with you, physical libraries will usually have to pay for the stock, digital or not, and that is why ebooks also might have to be put on hold due to a limited number
That’s exactly what the internet archive does? They have a limited amount of real books, and they check out E-books to borrow based on the amount of real books owned. Same concept of a library
@@kindanooby2988Normally, yeah, but the NEL they got sued for was giving out infinite copies of recent books. That's why they got sued. I really wish that context had been included in this video; it feels deceptive without it.
In the Netherlands we are loosing our language over this. You can find new books translated in Dutch but old translations are often out of print. A book like Journey to the west from China can be found online for free in English but a Dutch copy is anywhere between 50 to 100 euro. As a result a lot of Dutch people will read all foreign language books in English. In Amsterdam some of the largest bookstores don't even sell books in Dutch at all. I will never understand why publisher won't just digitally publish all the books in there catalogue. It makes me really angry that I can't read more books in my own language.
@@ẞæėįNo we don't? There's a ton of controversy going around about that and people are calling for better regulations to be put in place to prevent that. There's even a Chrome extension or something that makes any art you make invisible to AI art sites scouring the internet for shit to copy
@@ChaseMC215no, it's just that the kids that scream boycott for nothing have no idea what it means and don't know how it works, hence defacing the word
@@nightlustboycotting means nothing because Workers don’t have power with the money anymore, The corrupt are too rich for us to affect them a majority of the time, And particularly with Food Boycotts like mcdonalds, Mcdonalds had become the only affordable meal for some, and to boycott would be to starve yourself
serious question: what games and why? how'd you hear about them? this kind of thing is super interesting to me. if you don't have the time or energy to answer i get it, and appreciate that you'd have done that in the first place.
@@ohmygoditisspider7953 I don't know anything about steam but in Cd-Rom section there are plenty of old ps1-ps2 or NINTENDO games that are hard to find anywhere now.. And why ? sometimes you just wanna hook up and enjoy those old games
@@ohmygoditisspider7953IA is full of abandoned-ware games (games who's owners no longer care to enforce copyright nor sell the game in any way) An example would be the original PC ports of Angry Birds, but there are many others out there. I highly recommend browsing the software section to see what you can find.
@@Andrew.the.Philosopher Eff book publishers, IA was only making up for the millions of inaccessible books gathering dust in physical libraries during the pandemic
Sorry to be rude but under law it still is. At least for digital products most of the time you’re just buying a “license” to use it. We really need to fix the laws to make it more fair to people using the game
It's important to know that the judge in the ruling explicitly stated that IA is a nonprofit and does not have to abide by specifically commercial copyright. It's absolutely scummy to steal money from a library, and these lawsuits are overpriced as f*ck, but it's not guaranteed that this will be the end for IA like everyone seems to think
@@averagefanenjoyer8696 because the only thing they got hit with here is a fine. They weren't told to take anything down, all of the books they lent are still up there (i use IA for my college classes), just not up for infinite lending anymore. I'm optimistic because the more support they have right now, the less this lawsuit means.
"Intellectual property" doesn't make any sense and is only used to give certain people legal monopolies on certain pieces of information-an inherently non-scarce resource. (It's important to point this out because property rights are only ever established in the first place to alleviate the tragedy of the commons problem, which can only ever arise with scarce resources, not non-scarce resources.) The goal is wealth transfer from the general public to the holders of patents and "intellectual properties." It's ironic that people who violate "IP" laws are called pirates given that these publishing companies are literally trying to steal millions of dollars from a library. Who are the real pirates here?
They never mentioned shutting down. Like, at all. Also, no, no one will be able to make a copy of the website because of how much storage all the files need
@@dornadigital that isn't a bad thing nor should it be considered as such. somehow sharing resources and knowledge is a punishable crime because it allegedly harm the corporations' profit margins. how does that make any sense?
@@ethanfreeman1106 Do you even know how public libraries work? Are you basicity saying humans have a right to steal stuff if it has knowledge in it.When you get a book from a library you check it out and turn it back it when your done. The library is lending the book to you. What internet archive does is that it has one copy of a book that you can download and keep on your computer and you can also lend that copy to other people. Thats stealing because you didn’t check out the book. When a book gets lended to you your not allowed to copy it and lend copies to other people. The books public libraries lend to you are bought by taxpayer dollars and not downloaded illegally. If the internet archive wanted a library it could have simply struck a deal with the government and the government could give it money to buy books
@ethanfreeman1106 You automatically assume that anybody holding IP rights is a corporation and that, therefore, theft is acceptable. This is an incredibly short-sighted and dangerous attitude and is unrelated to my comment that is just pointing out that this has very little similarity to sharing a single book.
Eh... It would be more like if you burned 100 copies of a CD and gave them out to 100 friends. Look up the Internet Archive NEL. They weren't doing simple 1-to-1 lending like other internet libraries.
@@dornadigitalthe archive was doing 1 to 1 lending, but during the lock down was special case where they switched, because physical libraries were force closed
Still really mad at the Internet Archive for taking such a stupid risk, risking all digital libraries around the world because they really thought laws don't apply to them. But I do hope they survive this because they have a lot of important stuff saved.
Has humanity really become so corrupt that knowledge and art is gatekept for a price and those who try to give access to it are persecuted and treated as criminals? Oh wait, yeah. That's why I use Scihub.
It is not really about corruption; some seek gains, while others are too ignorant to seek knowledge and some are not willing to preserve knowledge. In the end, it is our own kind's inability.
@@amycosmicpuppy people could go online during the pandemic The books were still on the archive during the pandemic, the removal is more recent People could also go to other online libraries The way I see this comment is talking about books being gatekept right now, today, which they aren’t
Hey so you know how musicians have managers to handle the business side of music, so the musician can focus on music? That's what publishers do for books. It's not "authors aren't upset", it's publishers doing their legal duty in their contract with the author. If they didn't protect the copyright, then authors would likely sue the publisher.
All people on the internet should gather and donate for the archive to pay their legal fees, since it's a valuable service for everybody they are offering. I personally never used it yet, but it's very valuable to have our digital past archived and it's relevance will grow more and more over the years and decades.
Just a reminder that the founding father intended copyright to be something to make sure that new ideas keep coming instead of something to let companies milk ips until they bleed out
The Archive stopped doing lending and started doing 'digital printing'. Their justification was the pandemic, which has ended, but their policy has not. It was a clear breach of copyright.
HEY. EVERYONE. Just so you know, you can still access these ebooks. The fight was over lending multiple copies they did not technically 'own'. Since the publishers only gave them a 'copy', they were arguing that, if this was a physical book, you could not duplicate it without it being copywrite infringement. I don't like it, but they technically are legally right, and authors need to stay fed, so whatever. YOU CAN STILL BORROW A BOOK. You just might have to wait for it to be available to borrow! The limit is about 1-2 weeks, so don't worry too much. It sucks, but it's better than nothing.
You can thank your politicians for the sacking of the internet and your privacy. So long as you keep buying, you give these corporations the funds to pull off lawsuits like this. It's baffling how there are still people who push for censorship on the internet (particularly when they entrust it to companies) but there have always been morons who drag everyone else down.
Keep in mind that in a no-censorshop world, those with power could freely take and use the works of small creators with no repercussions *cough*AI*cough*.
@@dornadigitalAs a writer, I don’t work for a profit. Any texts produced for a profit are inherently degraded, and the world would lose nothing if people produced less texts made because a special-interest group funded them or the writer only cared about money. The issue is systemic, and it’s that we do anything for a profit in general-we need society to move beyond profit accumulation if we want to unlock the full potential of human cooperation. Public knowledge should be publicly supported.
@o.s.h.4613 If you'll reread my question, you'll note that I never said anything about profit. How do you propose that works be FUNDED? Or are you suggesting that writers, book binders, distributors, etc. work and provide materials on their own expense?
@@dornadigital If you reread my response, we need a systemic move away from a mode of production where owners of private assets hire labour to produce commodities for a profit, which should be started first and foremost by decommodifying intellectual work by treating it as what everyone already wants to treat it as: public property, evidenced by the hundreds of sites contains thousands of gigabytes of data, legal and otherwise, used by millions or billions across the globe for free. What’s the first thing the public does when confronted with a paywall? Search up ways to get around it. Why? Because we all intuitively know that to treat knowledge as a private commodity is bizarre and unnatural. What does the public think of libraries? You’ll be hard-pressed to find someone who thinks they aren’t just net-positives. Why? Because even the staunchest conservatives know deep-down that knowledge and money are incomprehensible as stand-in’s for one-another. If our current system can’t support public knowledge without resorting to privatization, then it’s the system we need to abolish, not public knowledge. For one, we need to move beyond physical books. For two, we need to prioritize our public expenditures, like in a way that drops less bombs. Also, we need to address the issue of paper-bloating in American academia, which is even more evidence of the incompatibility of these two concepts. The question of the socialization of knowledge is nothing new, and many nations around the world are already considering such policies (Belgium, China, Botswana, &c.), and if you’re still curious you should look into how we socialized public transportation, healthcare, or university.
When I heard of this I thought it would be about Heaven Studio, because it recently got taken down by Nintendo and the most recent version IS on Internet Archive
If it shuts down. There will be HELL to pay. And people WILL begin actively Impeding on progress of those involved in the lawsuits due to the amount of lost media.
it still doesn't make any goddamn sense to punish them for it. sounds like the internet archive simply adapted to the times and did what just made sense. we live in a digital era, limiting how people can access books by forcing a physicality on them is not a good argument, not even if you're making a case about how publishers and giant corporations supposedly lose money over that. it's not like the same people would've bought or even could have bought those physical books if they didn't have access to those digital copies. it was either unlimited digital access, or none at all.
@ethanfreeman1106 Nope. Didn't mention money. I would suggest responding to what people say instead of what you expect people to say. I will bring up an ethical point: Remember that exceptions to rules go both ways. Imagine if a massive corporation scraped the work of smaller creators and mass-reproduced them. That's the fight against AI, but even more blatant.
such bs, i work at the library and as soon as a copy is purchased and out of the publisher's hands they cant take it back, regardless of how the book is lended or used. obviously, because its been paid for. why that logic doesn't apply digitally completely evades me
Of course the music labels would be suing for absurd amounts. DMCA and it's consequences came directly from the recording industry having a melt down over the switch to digital media, they claimed artists were being infringed upon because of the open nature of the Internet, while at the same time screwing over artists with scummy contracts basically giving the labels full control of artists catalogs. They didn't do it to protect artists they did it to protect their monopoly on media. The RIAA and MPAA did everything they could to slow down the switch to digital media instead of embracing it like early Netflix tried to do.
You clearly don’t get how the market work’s. Remember limewire almost made record companies go bankrupt with more than 1.4 billion dollars in damages. Think what happened to the Lehman brothers and replace the Lehman brothers with the record companies. And no I’m not a coperate bootlicker im just more financially literate
Preservation is more important than copyright in the long term, not so much in the short, hence copyright expiration, but we need to preserve media now in the event companies go under and leave behind unrecoverable abandonware. A tricky problem for sure.
Its a motte and bailey. Blatant propaganda here misleading these midwits. Some are honest about their intentions, that they think piracy is good, but most seem to think IA was doing nothing wrong because it was "just acting like a library."
What's really at stake is keeping the "wrong" information from people to keep them from being too self reliant and basically fall down the 'mindless automaton' rabbit hole
The problem is expenses. Archiving the internet requires expensive data storage, and it will only cost more in the future. Losing a large chunk of its funds to a lawsuit is not going to be fun for their accountant, especially as a non-profit. If they can't meet their bottom line, they might have to limit the expansion of the archive until they recover, or if it's bad enough, they might have to shrink the archive and sell off some (or all) of their equipment. That will be a sad day for the internet.
