this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2023
198 points (98.5% liked)

datahoarder

6783 readers
7 users here now

Who are we?

We are digital librarians. Among us are represented the various reasons to keep data -- legal requirements, competitive requirements, uncertainty of permanence of cloud services, distaste for transmitting your data externally (e.g. government or corporate espionage), cultural and familial archivists, internet collapse preppers, and people who do it themselves so they're sure it's done right. Everyone has their reasons for curating the data they have decided to keep (either forever or For A Damn Long Time). Along the way we have sought out like-minded individuals to exchange strategies, war stories, and cautionary tales of failures.

We are one. We are legion. And we're trying really hard not to forget.

-- 5-4-3-2-1-bang from this thread

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Another lawsuit against Internet archive sigh

top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] smay@lemmy.world 88 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Can mfs stop attacking the internet archive im so tired of this shit

[–] kratoz29@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

I'd suppose owners/main team would be annoyed AF as well.

[–] SamsonSeinfelder@feddit.de 82 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Those companies are such a drag for human society because they are afraid of their bottom line. the Music Industry and Amazon also would have burned down the Library of Alexandria if they had deemed it worrisome to their profit.

[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And theres still no proof that every download truly is a lost sale. It's all just make believe.

[–] AnonTwo@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think it'd be completely unrealistic to think that there are no lost sales...whether or not the amount they're losing is actually meaningful would be a better question....

[–] EsotericEmbryo@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I definitely understand this take but there are a lot of things that I would have never watched if I hadn't torrented it. Many things I do want to see more of I pay for of course but a lot of it I would just never have viewed or listened to in the first place.

[–] AnonTwo@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

It's definitely somewhere in the middle. I agree there's definitely a good number of cases where the person downloading also wouldn't have considered it otherwise.

[–] Imbrex@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The Internet is rapidly being ground down by all these companies.

[–] kratoz29@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

And it sucks because the Internet is meant to be for everyone or at least that is what AJ from Fairy Odd parents said!

[–] Rooty@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

These records should have been in the public domain many years ago. Copyright law needs a thorough reform

[–] Zana@startrek.website 9 points 1 year ago

But there is no money in that, please, think of the corporations! /s

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 14 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The labels' lawsuit filed in a federal court in Manhattan said the Archive's "Great 78 Project" functions as an "illegal record store" for songs by musicians including Frank Sinatra, Ella Fitzgerald, Miles Davis and Billie Holiday.

Representatives for the Internet Archive did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the complaint.

The Internet Archive is already facing another federal lawsuit in Manhattan from leading book publishers who said its digital-book lending program launched in the pandemic violates their copyrights.

A judge ruled for the publishers in March, in a decision that the Archive plans to appeal.

The labels' lawsuit said the project includes thousands of their copyright-protected recordings, including Bing Crosby's "White Christmas," Chuck Berry's "Roll Over Beethoven" and Duke Ellington's "It Don't Mean a Thing (If It Ain't Got That Swing)".

The lawsuit said the recordings are all available on authorized streaming services and "face no danger of being lost, forgotten, or destroyed."


I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] nIi7WJVZwktT4Ze@fost.hu 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

*logs onto Soulseek instead*

We don't talk about Soulseek

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And once again it's due to Internet Archive going beyond its mandate to be an archive of the internet, and instead trying to become a more blatant form of Pirate Bay.

I really hate these litigious publishers and copyright has gone way too far, but this is not be the fight that Internet Archive should be picking. It's going to get itself destroyed and take a vast quantity of irreplaceable data long with it.

[–] FarraigePlaisteach@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago

I see the copyright holder of a book asking them to take it down from years ago. No response from internet archive. Feel sorry for the guy and I stopped donating to internet archive since then.

You’re absolutely right. Archive.org don’t need to fight this fight.

[–] AnonTwo@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just wondering, but if you digitize 78-RPM records, what is the actual difference between them and the digital copies existing on other websites? Just that they're the original recorded copies?

[–] Calcium5332@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They probably sound slightly differently, and have more historical value to them. I just digitized my grandfathers cassette collection, because it was his, and are a different experience (because of how cassettes sound).