oistepanka
Web Surfer
Learning, Exploring, Engaging
Posts: 41
|
Post by oistepanka on Apr 30, 2023 18:49:22 GMT
This is going to be in lay man speak i.e. not super professional but..
What do you think of the lawsuit by publishers against the Internet Archive?
Rundown: for those who don't know. The Internet Archive, creators of the Way Back Machine, are getting sued by top publishing houses for creating Ebooks they gave out more freely during the pandemic, of ones they purchased outright and created a library system around because what they have done isn't considered "free use." This in turn may have ramifications that go beyond Internet Archive and hit actual libraries. Which effects? people like you and me trying to live our lives while publishing houses take a large cut from even the original authors..
Sounds like publishing houses fear to lose their middleman status, in my opinion. They are not as necessary as they used to be.
On the other hand some folks online have pointed out that the IA was wrong in the way they handled things.
General Info on the topic at hand here:
In other places of the internet, talk has begun about what to do in worst case scenario i.e. backup of the internet archive it's self. Split between parties to preserve data while the big fight is duked out in court. and if the worst was to happen.. well files would be saved and housed elsewhere for safe keeping. In best case scenario, in physical archives (external portable hard drives) offline until specific legalities were solved and then they could be returned to the internet at the appropriate time. Thinking long term here, legal battles could take at worst case scenario: decades.
What are your thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by septet on Apr 30, 2023 20:44:28 GMT
It's certainly given me a lot to think about. I think the video is a good introduction to the case, probably because this YouTuber focuses more on recapping the events of the lawsuit and not too much on their own feelings on the matter. Please don't take the following as professional opinion.
The bit about Neil Gaiman criticizing the Archive surprised me a bit, given that I once saw him encourage his followers to buy/borrow his material at used bookstores and libraries. I'm not saying that makes him a hypocrite, because this is such a thorny, complex issue, but it stood out to me. I think the Archive limiting the amount of digital copies it gave out to however many physical copies it actually had was a smart move, and I'm not surprised that the National Emergency Library was the tipping point for the major publishers to pursue legal action.
As a (wannabe(?)) artist(?), I don't really think you should just pirate everything. But the copyright system is so easy to abuse and use in bad faith, and the penalties can be very obscene.
|
|
Starfia
Web Surfer
(Hobla-hey.)
Posts: 29
|
Post by Starfia on May 10, 2023 20:53:03 GMT
I posted about the suit during a prominent phase of the trial a couple of months ago:
https://bluedwarf.top/cackle/view-post.php?post_num=1244
Now that that's come and gone, my opinion is: what was in question was not the idea of archiving old content on the Web. That's presumably fine by just about everyone. What's in question was their habit of operating like a library using digital copies of physical books. I think that's reasonable as well, but it depends on the lender's trustworthiness to implement what they call "controlled lending" – maintaining an effective analogue to a community library by lending only one digital copy of any physical book at any time. They seem to have done this well, except during the pandemic, when they decided unilaterally to lend additional digital copies of books as fit user demand. That's wonderful for users, but in doing this, the Archive proved that it could and would relax that trustworthiness under some practical circumstances. From the standpoint of defending themselves legally, I think that decision was their big mistake.
When it comes to copyright concerns generally, I think the primary question should be whether the user of creative works is considering the desires of the creators (or rights holders), rather than the relative and potentially obscuring hairball of legal entanglements on which something like this feels like it will have to be decided. Some creators want to sell their work, and that should be considered fine, and some creators want everyone to see their work and would love it to be freely reproduced, and that should be fine too. If there's anything I think should change around this culturally, it's that there should be more of a commonplace habit of asking creators before doing this kind of thing, which I think would soften the need for legal stringency to begin with.
|
|