this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2024
1014 points (98.9% liked)
Privacy
32424 readers
473 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
the corporations dont care. why should the archive be under the pressure of the soulless suits at all? any "stunts" are just excuses for doing what they will do anyway: pick on anyone who doesnt bow to their petty whims.
no, saying that this is the archive's fault is so gross, and just says that you accept their bullying and blackmail as somehow moral
archive should decentralize, that's the only real solution imo
Archive has been around for well over a decade with no issues outside of sporadic DMCA claims against user uploaded content. For many many years they have been left alone, despite hosting a shit ton of copyrighted material.
Occasional legal battles that they've handled with no problems with the help of the EFF. This is the first "existential threat" to them in quite a long time.
This is absolutely because they pulled the emergency library stunt, and they were loud as hell about it. They literally broke the law and shouted about it.
Libraries are allowed to scan/digitize books they own physically. They are only allowed to lend out as many as they physically own though. Archive knew this and allowed infinite "lend outs". They even openly acknowledged that this was against the law in their announcement post when they did this.
I can absolutely say this is their own damn fault while disagreeing with the law they broke. There, I just did.
I think that you are right as to why the publishers picked them specifically to go after in the first place. I don't think they should have done the "emergency library".
That said, the publishers arguments show they have an anti-library agenda that goes beyond just the emergency library.
The trouble is that the publishers are not just going after them for infinite lend-outs. The publishers are arguing that they shouldn't be allowed to lend out any digital copies of a book they've scanned from a physical copy, even if they lock away the corresponding numbers of physical copies.
Worse, they got a court to agree with them on that, which is where the appeal comes in.
The publishers want it to be that physical copies can only be lent out as physical copies, and for digital copies the libraries have to purchase a subscription for a set number of library patrons and concurrent borrows, specifically for digital lending, and with a finite life. This is all about growing publisher revenue. The publishers are not stopping at saying the number of digital copies lent must be less than or equal to the number of physical copies, and are going after archive.org for their entire digital library programme.
this is a fair assessment.
regardless, if they want to do what they're doing, they need to decentralize.
They need to decentralize because it was always only a matter of time before they pissed off the wrong capitalist sociopath or piss baby politician.