545
The Internet Archive needs your help, seriously
(blog.archive.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2025
545 points (100.0% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
61680 readers
256 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
🏴☠️ Other communities
FUCK ADOBE!
Torrenting/P2P:
- !seedboxes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !trackers@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !qbittorrent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !libretorrent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !soulseek@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Gaming:
- !steamdeckpirates@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !newyuzupiracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !switchpirates@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !3dspiracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !retropirates@lemmy.dbzer0.com
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Homie, the IA is an archive. Their first and foremost aim is to make culture and knowledge available to the masses. You should read the blog entry. It's not like they're distributing the latest Marvel slop.
They lost that argument when they implemented the possibility to play games they host in the browser.
I'm all for an archive. I'm not sure IA are doing this right.
but come on, it's not like they're modern videogames or something, they're old stuff from the 80s and 90s that one would never be able to play without access to the original hardware, so even in that case it's about preserving the media, not committing plain copyright infringement to the original game publisher or something
They can be archived without being playable - and many of them are definitely still sold today and playable through commercial emulation. Playing PSX (Playstation 1) games is part of Sony's Playstation Premium subscription as an example - and Nintendo has the same.
Completely unnecessary, and puts the actual archiving arguments at risk meaning we might see court action that makes it impossible for other "real" archives to exist.
You mustn’t be afraid to dream a little bigger darling.
Imagine an archive for unreadable books, unwatchable films, and unplayable games too!
This seems like what all the rights holders actually want, the archive. IA did the work for them. Now they can sue the shit out of them AND take the archive. Win win for the corpo clowns.
I'm doing my tiny part. I have all of their game sections backed up on my NAS here along with an off site cold storage solution.
I think you forgot commenting the part about your "never be able to" statement being a flat out lie.
Arguing that subscription services should be the only way to experience 30+ year old media that you may have already purchased is certainly one view... I don't think you'll find much support here, however
They acted like a regplar library: only one person was able to play concurrently. If that's not ok, then all libraries should get sued.
What good is an archive where you cannot access the content?
Not much, no. In this climate I would say, keep it hidden, keep it safe. Then wait for better times.
The law is a law. Their aims do not override it. They are getting what any sane person would expect. Nothing prevented them from separating their legal and shady operations to separate entities. That, at least, would prevent compromising the whole operation. If someone puts his head in a lion mouth, it is still his fault, at least partially, that lion kills him.
I doubt this argument will hold in court.
It's acting like a library. When the current laws and political systems would prevent libraries being invented now, it's a sign that the laws are bullshit. Not that libraries are wrong.
I agree that the laws are bad. However, they are still laws. Breaking them has consequences.
The law can be wrong, and it would be cool if the hard work of others is maintained while that's fixed.
You're still missing the point tho.
You claimed it was piracy. Piracy is not when you go to a library and listen to something the label doesn't sell anymore. Piracy is downloading the latest Imagine Dragons slop without paying.
If the library does not have the license or a right, guaranteed by law, to do that, then it is piracy.
US copyright law has been co-opted by corporations for the exclusive profit of corporate copyright holders. Just because a law exists doesn't mean it is just. Props to the IA for fighting the good fight.
Agree, but breaking the law and putting your whole operation at risk is not a clever nor productive way to fight it.
God forbid they act as if they (or anyone at all by your logic?) have some skin in the game.
Which law? in which place? at what time ?
Where it's hosted? where it's being accessed? the intermediate locations ?
Which license, is the license enforceable in this context? who decides if it is? what if there are conflicting decisions from different applications of law, who arbitrates?
Do you mean piracy in the maritime sense? or do you mean copyright infringement? perhaps trademark infringement? or intellectual property theft? based on which law in which geographic region ?
This isn't even hyperbole, the things you are talking about have nuance and context, pretending they don't is a failure of imagination or intentional trolling.
It's called property. You buy a book. You don't get to copy it, but you get to show it to anyone you want.
Private property is the smallest unit of warfare.
The only books I've paid for are the ones where the author explicitly allows copy and free distribution.
Well, those and the ones that get bundled with online access way back in uni.
That's nice. But why? Do you not miss out on e.g. The Great Gatsby?
How many books have you paid for, and how many does a library have?
Beyond missing the subtext...
I don't actually read all that much. I'm excruciatingly slow and i don't currently commute. Most of my reading was on public transit or camping. But the authors i like just happen to either be ok with sharing copies of their work or it's available for free anyways. That said I've bought maybe twenty books in the last decade...
Textbooks from exploitative publishers especially i refuse to pay for. E.g. Wiley, pearson, McGraw-Hill, etc... As well technical publications and journals.
The great Gatsby was provided by school when i read it. All the books were in my k-12. Most the students couldn't afford them.
And The Great Gatsby was brought to you by a library—your school's.
Yes?
Did i say something anti-library or am i reading into this wrong?
It is or at least should be a library's right to buy and lend books.
I get it now. I was kind if skipping some context. I was saying under legal means sharing books is fine and good(not paying for it). e.g. going to a library. But you can certainly copy books and distribute them. I posit that it's nearly always ethical to do so. Whether or not it's legal is a different question and depends on the material in question.
The law is the law in the very specific contexts in which it applies and is heavily open to interpretation and bias, which is (in theory) why trials and lawsuits exist.