I really hope Internet Archive isn’t deleted as many pieces of recovered lost media could become lost once again, a nightmare for every media preservationist!
@@DasArchiv Ah, yes, we should destroy millions of important documents and files because YOU fucked up and lost access to your account. I'd be glad if every self-centered person in the world took a long walk off a short pier.
@@DasArchiv No one has the right to decide whether or not something of theirs is archived, you sign that right away the second you make something public. If people had control over what of theirs is archived history books would be less than ten pages. I highly recommend you drop this contrarian attitude, your life will be better for it.
The thing is. The IA knew they were violating copyright law and stated so. Other people working for the IA did not agree with him. He’s just a shitheel that wants attention and seems hellbent on sinking the site. The biggest danger to IA is Brewster. He’s not mentally stable
copyright holders would rather destroy and erase works because they didnt get paid than have anyone see it. If the moon was under copyright the earth wouldve drowned long ago from someone trying to look at it for free and the resulting legal battle
Copyright law is one of the reason we lose knowledge (in media form). I still remember in 2014 I found some good thesis on the internet (full paper). A few years later I lost the file, and when I go look for it again the account that shared the file had been deleted due to copyright violation. I never found those thesis anywhere anymore. The physical paper may still exist in a random library somewhere, but I never found anything about where it is.
Archives like these are generational memory. Its so easy to change dates and names in history by people who have an agenda if archives like these don't exist.
As a researcher, Internet Archive is essential. There are so many books that it's the only realistic way to get access to. Just as importantly, the Wayback Machine is absolutely essential to the preservation of data and culture.
Yeah I actually needed it in a case I was researching for school and links were broken. I actually thought it was interesting seeing a website like it was many years ago
@@Willowposting In general, any copyrighted content are moved to public domain after 100 years, but in reality most (if not all) companies will remove them from everywhere well before the expiration date to prevent anyone to copy their content
no it will allow people to be transformed by indoctrinating them into a new past and thus a new future, your thinking is small, think like the elites do my friend
Corporations don't give a shit about the long term future, they only care about short term profit and will destroy those who get in their way because of evil Capitalism
The internet Archive and Waybackmachine have been an absolute lifesaver for students, as well as preserving numerous lost media. If there's a copyright problem with some of the material on it, than just ask them to get rid of it. No need to shut it all down. Shame if it gets closed.
The loss of IA would be as tragic as the burning of the Library at Alexandra. The internet is so ephemeral. Todays papers cite URLs. After a few years, those links no longer work. It galls me that companies that own the copyright steadily refuse to offer other agencies access while never intending to ever sell or distribute that material again. The original creators will never see another cent and even worse there name and creation will be lost to obscurity.
@@stevenschnepp576 form what was told mostly as an alternative to fire wood, a lot went heating bath houses, swimming pools, (or what ever there where called locally) Arab, crusading, it wasn't just the west that was religion, all over the place? Arab, crusaders where very picky, on what you could have as in the form books arts, cultures etc. mostly nothing, was permited, and if it was not bless by be okay be there holy scriptures, the holy books didn't even escape the purge only the most new versiosn could survive, the destruction, they did take a lot of the science, medical texts, and why-men(persons) as some sort spoils of war? back to there homelands?
Sinister Cinema made similar arguments when Sonny Bono advanced the Copyright Term Extension Act, which was mainly because Disney thought that they could prevent Disney porn. Disney didn't rush to extend copyright, and works have begun falling into the public domain again because they knew they couldn't stop people from making Disney porn even though it's still not legal.
Couldn’t somebody plan ahead and just save it on a hard drive? I imagine you would need a large amt of data to do so, but I’m pretty sure there are hard drives powerful enough to do so
@@pubertdefrog you'd need well over 120 *petabytes* of storage space. it would cost many millions of dollars to get enough storage space to download the entire internet archive.
For anyone wondering, Neil Gaiman was NOT tweeting that at the Internet Archive, he was tweeting it at the authors of the article. He supports the Archive.
I have always had a problem with the whole notion of intellectual property and hence with copyright. Yes, creators should be rewarded for their intellectual labours, but civilization has progressed by the free transmission of ideas. This is the underlying dilemma that needs to be resolved. The IA is immensely valuable to humanity. It must not be allowed to die for the sake of publishers' profits.
The original intent was once the author died the work became public domain. The creation of the corporate estate thwarted all that. The person is dead but their estate lives on.
@@billkeithchannel This is one of those issues where I'm glad there are people who are smarter than I and are parsing the problem more intelligently than I could. On the one hand, I think for humanity it makes sense to remove copyright protection when the owner dies. Then society can profit from the work. That seems to make sense. On the other hand, if the artist (writer, film maker or whatever) while in college decides to spend his life building a real estate empire, he can pass that down to his family in perpetuity. And that makes sense. If my father builds a great company, I should inherit it along with its riches. But I can't inherit the profits from the books he may have written. On an tangential subject , the slacker children of the real estate magnate who have done nothing and created nothing live a life of ridiculous, expensive luxury while the workers just slave on. I'm a capitalist and don't know of a better way to do it, but that doesn't seem right either. But if their father was a film maker, they get nothing. It's a wrinkled problem.
The internet archive is honestly a necessity. With how fickle the internet is, we've seen pages closed constantly. This really is historic and should be protected
It is so frustrating when I find an interesting article on wikipedia that has a bunch of broken links that are not archived. The news sites scrub everything it seems after a few months. Remember when the internet was "forever"? I cannot believe this is happening, but I suppose it was too good to be true, thinking the govt would allow such liberty online. After OWS, the Arab Spring, and 2016 election, they will never let us have it back. RIP internet.
As a writer, I assure you that the publishing industry is the single greatest reason we're struggling. It does not -- that word again: not -- defend writers or our rights in any sense. It's because we have to sign our rights away to them to make the pittance they allow us that they're such copyright werewolves. The money is THEIRS. It was never ours, and services like the Internet Archive help us vastly more than any rational argument that could be made that they hurt us. The fact that so many writers are so easily led to join in on this kind of copyright trolling is deeply embarrassing. Fellow writers: read a goddam book.
Ok so let's pretend that digital copy distribution was lawful and that big editors don't exist. How could a writer (who wants to live on their books income, so not a hobbist just to be clear) actually manage to be compensated enough to make a living out of it? If anyone could buy just one copy of their book and make infinite digital copies to give away, how can that writer actually manage to turn his efforts into a living? I'm genuinely asking since you're in the right field.
It's simple. The powers that be don't want this material available anymore to the public. Their excuses are meaningless. As usual. They want power and control.
It's the same with the Music industry. These Mofos are GATEKEEPERS who don't even wanna have anything to do with the actual content creators. They just don't want their position of power and influence challenged or risked.
As a professional Librarian, there really needs to be a fight by libraries and the library movement to ensure that digital media are treated in the same way as print media when it comes to rights to loan, resell etc. This was a great video on this. Let's hope legislators restore the balance and the status quo and that greedy publishers are not allowed to change the playing field in regards to access to information. The rights authors have under print materials should be transferred to digital materials. This unfortunately seems to be being worked out politically rather than in the interests of democracies or the traditional rights and values of libraries. Copyright law is a mess due to the actions of these US legislators. This has created glaring inconsistency between traditional copyright law and libraries in relation to physical books and copyright law in relation to digital media which needs to be reconciled towards the former or any form of "access to information" that is not controlled by the "$" will be at an end.
@@NoizyInSeattle No one is wanting to see authors suffer. Least of all Librarians. It is the publishers who are trying to change the field in ways that only benefit them and dismantle the basis of copyright which is meant to protect authors.
In Canada, under section 29.24 of the *Copyright Act*, a scanned digital copy of a book can potentially become the legal "source copy" if the original copy is ever destroyed. The Internet Archive was keeping a physical inventory of the books it has scanned specificially to provide a physical accounting of its digital copies, as a physical backup and simply because destroying rare books for the purposes of preserving them is oxymoronic.
“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.” ― George Orwell. Copyright for Creator benefits is OK, The problem is Corporate greed. Copyright law that pro corporate stand. Archiving is important for records, history, preservation etc.
This isn't just a nightmare for media preservationists, the Internet Archive is important for researchers and historians too. IA is documenting the internet like no other organization, and offering open access to it's archive. This lawsuit is undermining the archive's role of documenting and compiling the history of the internet, which is an affront to History itself ! Imagine all those bits of information lost and erased from memory forever...
From the view of member of a library sector that, as such, did close itself it is not at all uplifting where I have gone and how much money I have spent to piece together "minor writers" like Lucie Hörlyck, Heinrich von Buchwald, "Gamle Nielsen" or Mathias Winther, who should have been in gold printed editions for decades.
100% political persecution. This lawsuit is occurring at the same time the most insane presidential regime in modern America history is in power: the totally compromised, totally corrupt Joseph R Biden regime.
Indeed it is. I am a PhD student in History. The number of books held by the archive that copyright no longer applies to that I have been able to access (including a ton of books on the Southern theatre of the American Revolution and early America) have been incredibly valuable to my research.
They're killing freedom everywhere. Media preservation, free/libre software, and so on. It's honestly scary to wonder what the future will be like with events like these happening.
if you allow them to do this, then you allow everyone to do it. If that is what you want, so be it. Understand what you are asking for tho, and that there will be consequences either way
As an academic author (two [rather boring IMHO] academic tomes so far), I think copyright is mostly a racket to ensure profits for publishers, not authors. In academia, copyright just makes knowledge so expensive to access. As such, I support open access publications, and I hope the IA continues at least to be able to offer the short-term loans. (I think their COVID policy probably did violate copyright.)
Especially for those of us not associated with an institution! I'm not an academic per se just a well read member of the general public. There is SO MUCH academic material I want to consume that is behind paywalls that are completely impossible for individuals, especially ones like me who live on extremely limited incomes. Academic books can run over $100 each. My disability and consequent financial considerations shouldn't mean my inability to access information, but it does. This is disgusting in this digital age.
“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.” ― George Orwell. Copyright for Creator benefits is OK, The problem is Corporate greed. Copyright law that pro corporate stand. Archiving is important for records, history, preservation etc.
Copyright and fair use are only there to protect the market, but the market often fails to serve humanity. There's a difference between lawful and morally right.
Copyright protects me, the creator of a photograph. Fair use protects an educator to be able to use PORTIONS of a copyrighted work for educational purposes. That's a very simplified explanation. It's disheartening that so many believe the creator of intellectual property has no right for compensation. This isn't just for big corporations. It's for the small business person that spent a wad of money on a studio, backgrounds, camera equipment and training to make wedding or portrait photographs or the artist that paints works of regional scenes. Nobody has the right to reproduce those works without the permission of the creator. Lawful and morally right both validate that the creator owns the creation.
you cant own ideas and none tangable conceots property rights dtate man owns property when he takes from nature and creates a new You cant own an idiea you cant own imagination or conceots and you cant own recreations of idieas acording to actual human rights Copyright was created to facilitate the creative market by minimising risk factors done so the govan tax art and make a profit of it not for human rights
@@demonic_myst4503 monopolies are the natural consequence of an open market. A cynic would say they're its intention. Any opposition to monopolies starts by restricting the market, so copyright serves to protect the market from regulations.
The publishers behind this lawsuit should be asked questions about the thousands (millions?) of titles they hold copyright on but don't print for sale. Many books have been out of print for a decade or more. A large number of public libraries are reducing their collections due to space and money constraints. The IA fills a genuine need ensuring that books of all ages and topics remain accessible to readers who wish to read them.
So what you are saying is: Racketeering charges designed to profit off of an artificial scarcity in the secondary market, essentially coopting government for private interests.
@@jnagarya519why do corporations cut corners and steal wages while also enforcing dumb policies and concepts like "time theft?" Maybe cause capitalism is an easily abused system with how its currently governed.
"Internet archives is hurting small author who are struggling" They say as the biggest editors take it to court. I'm sure they're doing it for the struggling authors.
@@as-1982 then show you can make good book, and make someone commission another one or make it a fundraising. You do know it's how stuff worked until we had copyright and it worked much better
I'm totally pro Internet Archive, but I'm amazed they thought they would get away with the National Emergency Library thing. My heart sunk when I heard that part of the video - it immediately sounded like they were doomed. However I think they should totally follow the judge's advice and go to Congress to get the first sale doctrine expanded. I'm sure that will be easy enough! (Ok definitely not easy, but an important issue to raise.)
@@poweradereal Yeah, and this makes more absurd they're using artists as the ones damaged instead of talking about the pennies the corporations "lose", because they're the only ones affected by the IA being a thing.
They brought it on themselves. They were already skirting the law by loaning books 1:1 when they didn't have permissions of a "real" library. But they weren't being sued. It wasn't until they totally flaunted the law and offered "Unlimited Loans" on copyrighted material that the lawsuit slammed them. I don't understand why they did such a crazy move. Such a precious thing and they threw it away on bad judgement.
Agreed, without it, how many times would the “Authoritative source” have gotten away with blatantly lying and gaslighting us into thinking we were the one who were in the wrong
Yup, they have been rewriting history in their own sneaky ways for a long time, but they want more and more and MORE AND MORE power and control, and the ability to apply it anywhere on a whim. I hope IA gets better lawyers. Think there was foul play afoot? At the risk of sounding too tinfoil-hat-y, I hope they're not being sabatoged and set up to fail somehow. It's happened before, no? I'm not jumping to conclusions, just very concerned and suspicious about this whole thing. I'm sure if the publishing mafia could they would absolutely rig the case. With connections you can do some truly devious shit to your "competition". And you can bet on the mainstream media publishing mafia to have connections galore. I don't even want to know how deep that shit actually runs lol.
This is exactly why piracy will never go away and quite frankly, should never go away. There will always be people who require access to material, because of 1. They can't afford the original, 2. They quite frankly don't want to buy it. I would prefer IA continue to allow people to view books online, rather than allowing people to download them. Like a RU-vid for books - if you get my drift. There would be no harm in that, correct? IA still owns the book and isn't "illegally" distributing it, just allowing people to view their copy.
TBH I dislike word "Piracy" and prefer "Consumer of non-official digital copy". When you get any digital unauthorized copy you not raid cargo ship to steal goods. And if publishers want to beat "piracy" them shuold do so not in court but at market. Steam nearly killed game piracy in easter Europe by providing good price for good service, while in late 90-mid 00 piracy gaming was so big that find license game to buy was quest on its own.
The problem is that they own 1 license for that copy. That means that your copy can only be in 1 place at a time. It's the same principle for buying a movie. You cannot duplicate the disk and have it be shown at 2 places at once because you only own 1 license. The book could only be viewed 1 place at a time per license owned. Instead they could create a contract with the publisher for streaming rights. Which is how Netflix can have multiple people watching a movie at once without owning thousands of everything behind the scenes.
This sounds like an elaborate script playing out .. to garner public support for burning down a Library. Paper and Ink is the closest we've gotten to timeless data storage ... warm up your printers and get to work. Magnetic data tape has a 40-50yr shelf life ... pretty decent if you must keep digital information.
The Internet Archive is typically THE kind of project that should be running on a distributed model on a P2P network across ALL the internets. They truely have the original Internet goal spirit.All nations should participate.
Archive and Project Gutenberg have been working for years to roll back the serious overreach of the modern copywrite law... as sponsored by Disney et al. The fact that it is now a century or author plus 50 for copywrite is crazy.
@@leechowning2712 Yeah, I agree, i remember some people talking about this in Linux/Free Software dedicated newspapers in France, 20 years ago. Disney worked a lot on this through lobbying, just to keep exploiting their early productions which are still popular works, it's really the most griddy company ever seen...
@@OktoPutsch Project Gutenberg has big drives you can buy with ALL their present works... and it will update when connected to the internet. If I could afford it, would get a pair. One to keep updated, and one stored offline so works cannot be deleted.
@@leechowning2712 I didn't know about that, thanks for the info, actually I'm on 4G with quotas, but one day i'll get back with an FTTH line, i'll get my servers back and try to participate too.
@@OktoPutsch I have about 10k of the books backed up, especially the historical culture books. Since all I have is my phone, I have filled it about half just with epubs... Which are much lighter than pdf.
Internet Archive CANNOT DIE!! It helped me out massively when I had to take PayPal to court because they said I violated their AUP terms.... They changed their terms AFTER I used their service and AFTER they withheld my money to say you cannot earn money for live streaming. The wayback machines thankfully proved that the day I signed up for their service there was ZERO mention of this in their AUP and I won the case. The wayback machine helps to maintain accountability, you cannot just post something and delete it because it will have been crawled
Part of the problem is that copyright law was written before we HAD this kind of technology. A LOT of laws need to be updated to account for the changing way the world works.
The internet archive literally preserves more things than most other places and the best part is they can't be destroyed physically like multiple other examples of preserved media that now has become lost
The IA also lets you store 'snapshots' of websites. Not only does this provide a source for historical study of out 'internet age' but it also means a record can be kept of sites, tweets, blogs etc that the creator/writer * cough * politicians * cough * later tries to delete and pretend they didn't say.
@@moxy6216 Yep, to be fair, everything that is on internet archive is also storaged by a lot of people. If internet archive ever dies, i bet it's simply going to be replaced.
@@paonippobemduro for the web pages themselves I highly doubt it. There are far too many snapshots of too many sites. I've seen some sites that were so obscure that I doubt anyone browsed them except me. If the web archive is gone, a lot of its content will be gone forever.
The Wayback Machine is what prevents every record being destroyed or falsified, every book being rewritten, every picture being repainted, and every date being altered.
If publishers and authors wish to enforce their copyright protections, then part of that should be a responsibility on them for the preservation of such materials for posterity. How much knowledge has been lost as books have gone out of print, or countless magazines have been destroyed and lost to time? Our modern world now has the marvel of digital archiving, which should be used to the fullest extent for all written publications, even if the owners are not quite ready yet to release them to the public domain. Sadly, for all their complaining about publishing rights, many of them only seem to care about "best-sellers", and are content to let many others fall off the cliff into obscurity. We should not allow this as a society, for one day that lost knowledge could save us, much like the wisdom of the ancients were rediscovered in the Renaissance.
Let it be known that the destruction of the Internet Archive would as great tragedy if not greater than that of the burning of the Alexandria Library. All in the name of corporate greed.
Lawyer here 🙋🏽♂️ FWIW: Saved my firm a ton of headaches using the wayback machine to prove a client we had for 2 years had been lying about his entire asylum story. Long story short: the internet archive saved us from filing a brief with tons of false statements in it.
@@jadapinkett1656 yes but not by filing a fake brief, you need to mention true details or the prosecution can catch you on your mistake and have an upper hand in the case
@@jadapinkett1656 You are required to defend lying defendants. You are not permitted to lie in court. The courtroom is not a venue for free speech, it has strict rules about what can and cannot be said, and the violation of those rules comes with consequences. See: Anything legal to do with Trump since the 2020 election ended. His lawyers were ordered to lie again and again, and now a good chunk of them are no longer permitted inside a courtroom.
Interesting. It's not clear to me why the IA didn't just work with the closed libraries to hold the libraries' physical copies as backing for the digital lending of the National Emergency Library. No actual physical transfer of copies would be needed. And, it would have just been an extension to what they had been already doing for years. It may have put them on a much better legal footing. Unfortunately, the way they did it pretty much painted a target on their back.
It did stray from its original mission of providing uncensored, full access of the internet. It allows people to decide which sites should be removed from the WBM and which sites should be prevented from being saved to the WBM. And it doesn’t let you view certain sites on the WBM :/ But it’s still important and I hope it keeps living without civil or government censorship or nannying
I used to love discovering old books that nobody heard of at the local library. But to make way room for the new books being published, books like that are exactly the ones that get discarded. The Internet Archive is the closest I can get to still finding them.
Yeah. Public libraries can't physically keep up with the materials of the past present and future all at once, even if physical books didn't eventually become too damaged to read...
I think about this all the time. I even take it one step further: As time marches on, history books will have to start leaving old things out because it has to fit into a school-year curriculum. Do we not teach about the Great Depression so we can make room for [fill in the blank]?
the internet archive is fully digital and they can easily alter any of their copies any way they like. Your reliance on them is misplaced. If you want to have a proper record you must do it the hard way, get volunteers, donors and establish an actual building with the actual originals. That is the only real way.
The Internet Archive is so insanely important because if you need to refer to whatever subject or topic you're focusing on and you need a definitive source, the Internet Archive will have exactly what you need that's archived and preserved. It's more than just a fantastic website filled to the brim with research and information, but thanks to the Wayback Machine, you can look back on old websites and reminisce about the old days of the Internet. Deleting and removing the Internet Archive would be a MASSIVE tragedy. All the printed works that were preserved will be gone forever, and would be greatly infuriating to anyone who needs to find an informative and reliable source to support their claims. Also any aspiring academics on a tight budget would be forced to spend hundreds or thousands of money to buy some academic reports or books just to help them on whatever subject they're studying to get their degree. Most importantly, there are several pieces of print, film, or art that no longer exist anymore, it would be incredibly rare to find them again and preserve them, which is why the Internet Archive makes sure to save them and allow them to be viewed by many users worldwide. It's genuinely annoying not many people realise how important the Internet Archive is and just take everything for granted. It NEEDS our help.
why cant they just delete everything before a certain date , so people still profiting off of copyrighted stuff can continue while old stuff isnt lost? better yet, they just stop bothering internet archive
@@kalmmonke5037 Hey, we're talking about a staggering 0.01% of the publishers' net worth being lost here, that's a loss they couldn't possibly stomach! I could stomach the destruction of those responsible for this, though, and with pleasure.
@@kalmmonke5037 As the company's website is accessible nearly worldwide, they still need to follow every accessible country's laws. Due to those copyright laws varying from country to country and type to type, they change constantly and can be a pain to keep up with. For example, major organizations in the US like Disney in the case of Mickey Mouse, have been successfully lobbing for copyrights to be increased in length for decades now. That character was initially copyrighted in 1928 and is still protected until 2024 unless the laws are lobbied again to increase that.
"but thanks to the Wayback Machine, you can look back on old websites and reminisce about the old days of the Internet." Andwhat if your web site is archived in there and you dont want it to be, the content has expired orchanged or whatever, they no longer will remove it without a court order or some such bs, even Google will remove your content on request.
When the Founding Fathers were around. Copyright was 14 years, with a 14 year extension. You could only copyright something for 28 years. By that standard. Most of these books would already be in the public domain already.
This really echos the statement "Keep them poor". I grew up super poor, and if not for my local library, I would never have gotten as good marks in my tests. I'd never have learned about tech and schematics. I had no internet access at all, only a phone with a very limited mobile data plan. Libraries are moving online, but if they're burnt down and kept in the physical realm, then the world is going in a dark place where knowledge is for those with money, and only those with money.
just think of all of us that grew up before the internet existed.. there is a reason that libraries became a thing in developing/civilized nations. all those books that got rented out and read over and over never made the authors money so it's just how it is and was. this whole thing now is just a disgusting greedy cash grab by publishing companies and greedy people.
Like you, my bias is to support the internet archive, but they should’ve seen this coming. I feel like there could’ve been a way to work with libraries so people could take out copies from their local library but have the ebook managed by IA, or alternatively, have libraries send their list of books and then books that can’t be lent because the library was closed could be added to the physical copies that back up the digital ones so they could expand the amount they could lend but on a stronger legal footing. IA is essential and we can’t let it cease to exist, but it seems like we should also be demanding that IA handle these things differently in the future.
“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.” ― George Orwell. Copyright for Creator benefits is OK, The problem is Corporate greed. Copyright law that pro corporate stand. Archiving is important for records, history, preservation etc.
It's incredible to see the lengths sociopaths will go to protect their egocentric fragile egos. Going as far as trying to temporarily cripple education just so they can afford their boats. No price is too heavy for their preferences. They're fans of straw manning. We have the books, we have the copies, but nobody is gonna use them when they need it the most because of these sociopaths. This is the way the world and it's attempts to preserve itself end, not with a bang but a whimper.
“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.” ― George Orwell. Copyright for Creator benefits is OK, The problem is Corporate greed. Copyright law that pro corporate stand. Archiving is important for records, history, preservation etc.
What I appreciate about the Internet Archive is that it makes out-of-print books available to those of us who live at a distance from large libraries. Thanks to IA I can read something written over 100 years ago that is sitting on the shelves of, say, Princeton Theological Seminary or the Bodleian Library at Oxford. The books I'm most interested in are usually in the public domain.
I love to read the books on travel through the Holy Land, when people did it on horseback and visited the individual villages and described them. Those were written like 150 years ago and are priceless. Find them by looking up "Palestine", as it was called back then.
I'm worried that publishers might attack public and university libraries next. If they can make lending on the internet illegal, they can make the very concept of "lending" illegal as well.
as someone who is recently getting started into historical costuming, i hope IA doesn't get deleted. IA contains lots of valuable period drafting manual from the 19th century up to the mid century, embroidery patterns, knitting patterns, magazine & news articles about the latest fashion trend of the past, etc etc
As a historian and professional genealogist, I hope the IA can survive this intact. While I support copyright laws on behalf of authors, at the same time, some publishers charge outrageous prices for content, which discriminates against those outside academia, thus creating two-tiered access to info. As it is, even without considering the pandemic, IA allows access often denied to people with limited mobility, including those with disabilities, as well as those who cannot afford to pay for overpriced materials.
I wonder and agonise over when they decide to start editing/chamgimg the history. The Scofield Bible is the biggest fraud as it and the Oxford publisher has notes on the verses and creates refernces unintended and even lies, Unteremeyer,m the Zionist who pushed for the boycott by Jews of German goods BEFORE Hitler was Leader and before there were the Nuremburg laws against Jews[odd to never have seen the ad full page of the boycott Mar 1933 pushing to boycott, and it lasted 7 yrs whereas the boycott of Hitler against Jews 1 day?[need to check that to be certain,but it wasn't 7 yrs] Orwell 1984 about the lost history and so they could make up whatever they wanted. I worryt how handwritten letters etc no longer able to be found after long dead humans are gone, or books, who i9s writing digitally as hard copies the goings on. Even the clerk who wrote the decision that gave corporations same rights as people???
@@vander9678 such books like medial and scientific research is inaccessible die to pricing, however with a limited readership and limited publication, that is only way those type of content get published at all.
Ok but none of that is relevant. You can't unilaterally assume the rights of things that don't belong to you. It's easy to be generous with other people's property. And I'm sure academia will be thrilled to learn they don't have to pay for books and journals.
I found a family history book there some time ago - I didn’t need it, my father has a physical copy, but it’s quite old so the less anyone handles it the better. Had some interesting stories in it!
@@CringePoopope they've been getting better lawyers too. And I am worried the publishing mafia might send lawyers their way (might've already happened, who knows?) to convince IA they'll do a great job while actually working undercover for the plaintiffs to directly sabotage their chances of winning the case. Either that or they just picked the wrong lawyer... Or something else. I don't know. Hearing about how poor IA's defense was got me thinking like this. I mean the mainstream media publishing mafia COULD do it, no? They've got terrifyingly deep connections. So it's a possibility.
They'll have to turn knowledge into evil and put it alongside with the perverts and assassins of the darkweb. This world is fucking sickenning. That's irony. IT mustn't happen that way. Knowledge is meant to be on the surface. Internet was supposed to be used to educate ourselves, but they're turning it into a mandatory advertisement watch device. Screw advertisers. They can go to hell early. IT's literal Black Mirror - 1 million merits. 🚲
Those companies sueing the Internet Archive make the same mistake like the movie companies sueing the video recorder industry in the 1970s. The lesson learned from the VCR industry is: Only those contents are "pirated", that aren't easily available to the public. When the movie industry shifted from sueing to mass producing cheap VCR cassettes with their contents, they made literally billions and billions of revenue. So, book companies: Just digitize your backlog and sell it.
This is a very important point, the IA is doing what the antagonists could/should have been doing decades ago. Many of these titles/works are unavailible/rare or vitually imposible to find/locate. The IA picks up where the authors/publishers failed to make these works availible.
See also, Steam by Valve Software and their hot take on piracy being a delivery issue, not a legal issue. They created one of the worlds greatest and most profitable video game content delivery networks and brought console-level convenience to PCs. I even buy steam copies of games I already own just because it's so nice having it delivered on that network. Not only did they prevent piracy, they made it even more profitable AND convenient. Now contrast that with these publishers going after a library. Want to sell more books? Build more libraries and make them as convenient and open as possible.
I mean, print-on-demand (POD) is a thing and has been for decades. Most publishers just refuse or are too lazy to bring only titles out of print by digitizing them and offering them through POD. So, people who want or need thosr books have to go somewhere and get them somehow.
@@HickoryDickory86 Agreed. Personally, I feel that any publisher that fails to keep a book/material in print/digitally available, has demonstrated that they are unfit to hold the copyright on said material, and should be relieved of such copyright, if they are using it merely to censor the material from public view. Here in the early 21st-century, there is no reason for ANYTHING to be out of print anymore.
I love having physical books. I will always prefer it over having a digital version. That said, I have many PDFs of books I'm not able to find. I remember recently wanting to purchase a physical copy of a PDF book that I have, only to find it out of print, with used copies (if you can even find one) going for $600!
This can't be taken with a grain of salt. The amount of invaluable information stored on the Internet Archive can not be understated. Shutting down this website means erasing most of what is almost 30 years of internet history. Websites, books, research, editorials, video content, old films, miscellaneous media, etc. This site, along with Wikipedia, is one of the most important tools on the internet today.
Also, wikipedia regularly cites the wayback machine (and through it the internet archive). It would essentially discredit most articles (literally, they would lose their citations) on it.
in the US, we have the 2nd Amendment, so we can actually put that to good use and stage a mass armed protest against the plaintiffs suing IA. In addition, also organize a boycott against the publishers involved. I'm sure that a combination of both tactics will make the plaintiffs realize their lawsuit won't be economically feasible, and hopefully they will end up backing down once they see their profits begin plummeting from the boycotts.
@@ct1660 I agree with your assessment of the situation and ways to curtail the mass censorship by people desiring the destruction of anything they can't control. I don't read modern books because I would rather read books from people that created nations not those hellbent on destroying everything.
We need to archive our history. Alot of it is online now. Don't let 'them' delete or manipulate the evidence. Somebody else needs to backup the whole lot and keep it safe from 'them' -whoever they may be at any point in time.
@@heartsofiron4ever Does literally the entire history of the Internet count? Or thousands of historical documents and newspapers that would be lost without it?
I’ve used Internet Archive to find Sears-Roebuck catalogs from the 1900’s to help accurately date the installation of headstones. I also use it to find resources about the American Civil War and Antebellum period of the American South for video projects. It is essential in conducting much of the research required as it is a database for books not easily accessible.
As someone who LOVES 2000s nostalgia (as someone born in the early 2000s), internet archive and wayback machine are like goldmines for me, I REALLY don’t want it gone, it keeps me going for real
Like wise while I was born in the mid 90s I love looking back at websites from the late 90s-early 00s when I wasn’t old enough to experience. Hopefully fanatics like us can try and archive things so these pieces of history are not forever lost 😩
I'm way older than you, but love using IA to peruse old science and computer magazines from when I was a kid in the '80s for the nostalgia and to see how predictions about the future panned out. I also sometimes get in a mood to watch terrible sci-fi and horror movies from before my time, and IA has done delightful garbage I won't find anywhere else 😊
Fellow 2000s kid here. I only just recently discovered the magic of the archive towards the start of this year, & now it's hanging in potential jeoprady, ffs!!! Why are the powers that be oh so hellbent on not letting us have nice things...
If viewing these books for free was really a problem, this lawsuit would've happened ages ago. It has nothing to do with copyright, it's all about control. Big companies don't like to share, which is why they go after sites like IA. Will IA perish? I doubt it but that won't stop companies like these from trying.
They're also coming after opensource. They want people dependent on them. Truth is it's them who are dependent on the people as the corporasites they are.
@@CarlyCatharsis Then the books archive that Google has, then they'll burn the physical libraries, then they'll execute people for owning books other than the communist manifesto.
When are corporations going to learn that money they're never going to earn in the first place is money they're never going to earn in the first place?
Archiving is a necessity for preserving media, literature, knowledge, and so much more. We absolutely cannot accept the loss of Internet Archive if it happens.
Internet archive is in itself a type of business. What they are doing should by rights be done by universities everywhere. But universities have degenerated into pushers of fashion and producers of little left wing automatons. This problem is so complex that it will never be solved in the present shallow world.
The issue is not with archiving for the purposes of keeping the information alive, rather, with giving free access to what otherwise would’ve costed money to obtain. If you support this then you support creating something without being compensated for it.
Benjamin Franklin wanted patents and copyrights to expire after 10 years. That gives the creator time to make profit from their work, but not rest on their laurels. He never copyrighted or patented any of his own work. I think Ben was a smart fellow. 😎
For me Internet Archive contains an impressive library of oldschool sample CDs and floppies from late '80s/early '90s that would be impossible to find in a physical form nowadays, not to mention having an appropriate device to read them is generating waste in itself. It's, honestly, an amazing thing, a museum of new era of human history and must be protected at all costs.
The appropriate device being used means it's not waste. It being not used means it's waste. If you're not aware, we don't exactly have a viable recycling program for these old devices.
I think that IA rightfully lost their case, that this video doesn't actually address the real issue, and is nothing but a sympathy piece for IA. I don't think IA will close down (and the video agrees so I don't know why other comments say that). Their archives are valuable, especially things like the way back machine. The only way it wouldn't be preserved is if they tanked it themselves. I actually encourage idea of replication for perseveration. They then started loaning as a service, but they certainly weren't in any position to declare that they could anything like a national library as a private entity. They went full Napster... from something on the edge to blatant copyright infringement. I think that it is best said at 14:45 the issues is with the law, so talk to lawmakers not the courts.
This reinforces the idea that we do not actually own digital items regardless of how they are portrayed at the time of purchase. When combined with the right to repair abuses restricting ownership of physical objects it seems like the road we are on is one where we lose much more than we gain.
Yes yes yes a million times yes. Everything is moving to a "subscription" based service or idea of ownership. If you can't resell a digital item that you purchased, then like you said, there's an argument to be made that you never actually purchased it and own it as property in the traditional sense, you've only leased it for enjoyment and consumption.
This whole thing is so shortsighted by publishers. The IA never let anyone download copyrighted books from their site, only ones out of copyright. I have bought a LOT of books AFTER being able to read through them on the IA, particularly cookbooks. I won’t take a risk on a book unless I really know I’m going to use or enjoy it. I’ll be buying a lot less books in future if the lending library stays down. I doubt I’m the only one.
anyone just saying going against internet archive, should be considered a high crime . Those people are heroes for keeping internet archive running. Give them a prize nobel
The internet archive is basically an essential if we want to preserve materials and data in case of media being lost due to physical copies or local servers being destroyed due to natural disasters, computer errors/malfunctions, hacking, webpages becoming outdated and defunct, physical copies being lost or written over. So many reasons that having an internet archive is very important for information keeping.
This isn't a legal debate. The publishers are doing the same things as IA, forcing university libraries to use taxpayer money to purchase items at absurd prices. They even do it for things that aren't copywritable and they don't own, such as academic journal articles and papers. Are we all supposed to get a tear in our eye every time a publisher pretends to speak for authors or musicians now? We don't need THE Internet Archive, we need millions of them!
We need to have a Renaissance in peer to peer- remember how the media companies were on the run and they were scared s*******. We can make it happen again
Copyright law was meant to protect the author. Not publishers and lobby groups. These are just middle men. Just like any insurance company. Somehow middlemen make more money than the people who produce works or put them to good use. Time to trim the fat.
They do own academic journals/papers, because idiotic "scientists" keep publishing their work in these copyrighted journals, and therefore assign their copyrights to the publishers for no compensation.
They had a legitimate argument when it came to cdl, but when they just decided to ignore the 1:1 ownership to lending requirements, they really had no defense.
I LOVE the Internet Archive. It’s allowed me to read books I read as a child that aren’t available to me anywhere else. It would be such a huge shame if it weren’t available anymore.
They shouldn't get rid of Internet Archive! Otherwise millions of recovered lost media would be gone again! I use the site to find stuff we don't have anymore, but getting sued over their very own digital library is such an idiotic decision. Let's have our fingers crossed for IA to win the case so lost media will be spared.
@@rosswarren436 Authors (and their beneficiaries) already have too much copyright protection. Setting copyright at death of the author + 95 years does nothing to forward the original goal of copyright-namely to encourage innovation. It only serves to enrich companies and individuals to *not* innovate after the author’s death. 14+14 years was enough.
@@Matthew-kg8nl YOU are obviously not an author or content creator. Jeez. I bet you like being paid for work you do, or do you work for free? Just asking.
This might not be the best time for a case like this given the current state of the supreme court. We can’t even have rights to our own bodies, they’re not just going to give us an actual fair chance at an education
The Wayback is a valuable resource to track down a video from a deleted RU-vid channel. Even if the actual video is not saved you can sometimes still glean info to track it down else where as long as at least 1 person tried to archive it. If the basic YT page loads then you got the original channel name and video name as well as the upload date. If the page won't load then you can sometimes get the name of the video. This aids in finding it on other sites such as odysee, channels-list, or 153news etc.
I am using this archive very often as a RETRO PC enthusiast. There is no place like this with such a complex database of disk images, drivers, even manuals for ancient electronics. Destroying that whould damage much more areas than anybody can imagine. Yes, there are other places where I can find (most of) the stuff. But those are often messsy, incomplete, full of junk or even viruses. I can understand that in some cases there might be copyright issues, but on the other side how to preserve for example software and documentaion from companies that went out of business years and years ago. And we should preseve that in the same way as music, books, movies. It is a record of what we have achived as a civilization. And yes, it is also a hobby and source of joy for many people.
The thing is, these are still in print... and they're giving them away for free with no restrictions. If the copyright had expired on those works, they would able to do as they do now with them.
This reminds me of how a couple of libraries in the UK (e.g. the National Library of Wales) are legally entitled to a copy of every book published in the UK. Law will soon expand this to include digital works. Anyone can order ahead and go into the reading room to then read a copy of any of these works for free, including viewing digital versions/copies, copies of ancient manuscripts kept at the library etc. It's an invaluable resource and I believe this system would be the best to have for a universal archive of essentially everything.
very very interesting! question please: when you say "legally entitled", does that mean some government agency pays for that copy? Also, your comment made me think: why can't some government branch deal with this? no publishers, just authors and their audience. The readerships decides how much an author gets...or is this too socialistic? ha ha.
I wish we can at last have access to everything freely. IF people wants to pay for a hard copy, all good. If they want to chip in a few coins to the author without having it sliced down to bits by publishers, all good too.
I worked for the I.A. In NYC almost 20 years ago. At the time we could only scan material prior to 1930 not only for preservation concerns but also due to copyright issues.
Personally I could care less about copyright laws if it's for old media, if it's something new from the last 5 years or so and still for sale that's one thing but something from like the 70s-90s with no other way to access it without spending $100s on the 2nd hand market then the copyright means nothing to me. Imo we should have more freedom as consumers on the internet than we currently do because preservation is important. Physical versions may slowly rot away while digital versions will be eternal.
The lawsuit is so infuriating, especially because they're trying to say "authors are being affected, they need profits from their books to survive!" when in reality the publishers are the ones who actually get the majority of the profits. Authors don't get much at all, and it's the publishers who are truly keeping the authors poor. The publishers just want money for themselves, not for the authors they're exploiting.
Exactly. "Woah is me, how dare artists be denied their rights and made to starve," says the impossibly wealthy CEO of a publishing company who doesn't pay their art slaves a dime.
The exploitation of authors by traditional publishers is what launched the self-publishing industry. They don't care about authors. They care about monopolizing the intellectual and cultural commons to squeeze out every penny for themselves.
Getty Images trawled the Internet and everywhere and gathered images into a database. They then charged people to have a copy even though they needn't own the copywrite. An artist that gave her work to the public used one of her pieces on her own website and Getty threatened to sue her for using their images. They lost but Getty still did and do it.
Funny how they say they're concerned about authors, while the publishers continue to profit from those authors' work without due compensation. It's literally the same argument that happened over p2p file sharing back in the day: the publishers continue to rake in money from both sides while throwing the reason they exist under the bus.
I think copyright is a good idea. But it has gone completely out of control over past decades. Initially a work was protected for (I think) 7 years. Which sounds fair to me. But today copyright can be 99 years after the death of the author or even longer. The IA isn't at fault, copyright is broken.
They might as well sue physical libraries. Kotel is unaware or have forgotten that multiple people can read the same physical book (by being next to each other). So yes, multiple people can read the same book more than how many are owned, both physical and digital. Makes me wonder if publishers would ever go after a mother of a family for simply reading to a child.
In the bright and airy scriptorium I added on to my private library wing, a lector reads the material being copied, to my scribes, who are producing period-authentic facsimiles. Reading this, methinks a crime may well be committed the first time we attempt to produce a time-traveller version of a copyrighted work, something that our project brainstorming team has been working on. This is the kind of thing that causes arguments among the scribes during their morning and afternoon breaks when they are issued one litron of oatmeal porridge and a pinte of strong ale. We use medieval French weights and measures in the shop to sustain authenticity.
