59
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 03 Nov 2025
59 points (100.0% liked)
Ghazi
945 readers
14 users here now
A community for progressive issues, social justice and LGBT+ causes in media, gaming, entertainment and tech.
Official replacement for Reddit's r/GamerGhazi
Content should be articles, video essays, podcasts about topics relevant to the forum. No memes, single images or tweets/toots/... please!
Community rules:
Be respectful and civil with each other. Don't be a jerk. There is a real human being on the other side of your screen. See also the Blahaj.Zone Community Rules
No bigotry of any kind allowed. Making racist, sexist, trans-/homo-/queerphobic, otherwise demeaning and hateful comments is not ok. Disabilities and mental illnesses are not to be used as insults and should not be part of your comment unless speaking of your own or absolutely relevant.
No gatekeeping and being rude to people who don't agree with you. Leave “gamer” stereotypes out of your comment (e.g. sexless, neck bearded, teenaged, basement-dwelling, etc). Don't compare people to animals, or otherwise deny their humanity. Even if you think someone is the worst human on the planet, do not wish death or harm upon them.
No "justice porn". Posts regarding legal action and similar is allowed, but celebrating someone being harmed is not.
Contrarianism for its own sake is unnecessary and not welcome.
No planning operations, no brigading, no doxxing or similar activities allowed.
Absolutely no defense of GamerGate and other right-wing harassment campaigns, no TERFs and transphobia, racism, dismissing of war crimes and praise of fascists. This includes “JAQing off”, intentionally asking leading questions while pretending to be a neutral party. This also applies to other forms of authoritarianism and authoritarian or criminal actions by liberal or leftist governments.
NSFW threads, such as ones discussing erotic art, pornography and sex work, must be tagged as such.
Moderators can take action even if none of the rules above are broken.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yes. There's an agreement and a system in place for that. While I support the internet archives efforts in general. Consent is a very important right. Not everyone cares or wants everything about them preserved. People also want the right to be forgotten.
A balance, definitely needs to be struck. Even if it is opt-out.
Im very curious what you mean by " there's an agreement and a system in place for that." Can an author tell a library that they are not allowed to lend specific books? I've never heard of anything like that
An author can tell anyone that. And as long as they still control the rights to their work, they can enforce it. Should you sign your rights over to a publisher, then that becomes the publisher's prerogative, not yours.
The consensus and case law surrounding traditional libraries. Is that libraries generally still bought physical copies. Even in the age of the e-book today. They still play by publisher rules of artificial scarcity and limited lending. Only lending out for a limited period, the number of licenses they purchased from the publisher.
The Internet archive however, allows everyone to infinitely duplicate items in the archive. Which is great for retention. But as a business model, it sucks. I support the archives mission. But is the archive supporting any of those they archive? And while generally invaluable in a good way. They don't offer a way to be forgotten for those that do want to be forgotten. Then again neither do most major internet focused entities. Reddit etc undeleting comments their authors deleted for instance.
I really don't understand how this would work. They can't do the normal legal nonsense of claiming they are only selling me a license to the book, if they sell a physical copy of the book to me. After they sell me a physical book they cannot prevent me from lending or reselling it.
If authors/publishers could find some way to legally do this they would, I just don't think they can.
I understand why a library can't make copies of a book (as far as I understood it the internet archive was "limiting" access to how many copies of a book can be viewed at a time) the copyright protections are clear. But copyright does not cover resale or lending.
Oh then I misunderstood you. Yes, if an author self publishes and sells copies. Their control over said copy largely ends when it leaves their possession. In fact they only maintain one right to it after that point. The copy right. Which unfortunately IA is a bit fast and loose with.
I'm not opposed to "the right to be forgotten" but imo that should apply to private speech, not something posted publicly. If you publish something on the open internet I feel like you've given up that right (like an author deciding to give copies of a book to friends vs an author selling a book in stores)
Yes, this exactly.