https://www.popsci.com/technology/internet-archive-loses-lawsuit/
How can we help?
https://www.battleforlibraries.com/ (sign petition)
Comments (16)
sorted by:
https://www.popsci.com/technology/internet-archive-loses-lawsuit/
How can we help?
https://www.battleforlibraries.com/ (sign petition)
I don't know. If their lawsuit had failed, it would mean that a copyrighted author and book would have zero protection. That would really be bad if you were an author, as an extension of the "if it exists it should be free" doctrine, where a person cannot earn from what they created.
Isn't it a primary purpose of copyright law, like patents, to incentivize people to create good things by giving them assurance that it won't be stolen? It sounds like a reasonable decision to me, because it only applies to books under current copyright protection being copied for free. The rest of Wayback (the whole internet archive and accountability) is unaffected, assuming I understand it correctly.
I used to work with a few bands in the 90s, and some were concerned with people pirating their songs. Some actually wanted their stuff pirated and spread around, more exposure.
As I said to them I will say to you...
Anyone who "steals" your songs (books, movies) were NEVER going to pay for them in the first place. Some might enjoy your work so much that they will come PAY for a legit copy. Think of the piracy issue like free samples, not theft. Theft would be if they take your song and use it in their album, claiming they made it.
But shouldn't the creators have the right to choose which strategy they want? I'm just thinking of the author who gets their book published, it strikes a chord with the public and a million people read it but ... nobody pays. Some authors may be able to sell coffee cups and endorsements or earn money with interviews and speaking tours, but what if they just want to charge for what they wrote? Shouldn't they be able to make that choice? I don't want copyright extension forever, but I think an author deserves some control over an original creation. That's obviously subjective, but this lawsuit seems pretty narrow based on what I've read, and it seems reasonable to me. But opinions differ.
"Don't take away money, from artists just like me... How else can I afford another solid gold Humvee?" =Weird Al
I do understand your point but it is IMPOSSIBLE to stop a book (movie, song, digital art, etc) from being copied and shared. It is something the author needs to embrace it, use it to their advantage instead of spend all their energy fighting it.
I have a library in my house FULL of great books, I love to read. But,I also like to check out books on peer-to-peer and The Wayback before I decide to buy a hard copy. Of the ten people I know that love reading, only two (me and one other) would peruse a pirate copy. The other eight would NEVER do such a thing and would either buy the book directly or read (listen to) it thru a subscription service. I bet most do not even know you can get a book for free. So I think you saying "a million people read it but nobody pays." would , in reality result in eight hundred thousand people paying for it. Not too shabby, even if two hundred thousand read it for free.
Look into the Metallica (Lars Ulrich) VS Napster case. This caused Napster to go bankrupt and Metallica to lose many of their fans. I won't listen to hem anymore, they are rich crybabies. Sure they won that case... Meanwhile, new file sharing sites continued on or were created to replace Napster. It did not even make a dent in piracy.
(From Wikipedia)
The relationship between music artists and P2P file sharing software is not always about infringing music. In a 2000 study, it was shown that users of Napster who download free music actually spent more money on music than the average person. In another study, it was proposed that by downloading free music, users are able to sample new music and find new tastes, which may lead to increased sales.[Several artists also supported Napster and used the service for promotion. In 2000, Limp Bizkit signed a $1.8 million deal to promote 23 free concerts
(END WIKI)
Embrace it like Al does in this song. I think this was his response to the Metallica (Lars Ulrich) VS Napster situation. (I think Metallica was even suing fans!)
"Weird Al" Yankovic - Don't Download This Song (Even Lars Ulrich knows it's wrong.)
https://youtu.be/zGM8PT1eAvY
Knowledge should be free. The sooner people realize this, the easier we can solve other problems. It is morally wrong to charge for wisdom, or understanding. I have a big issue with religious organizations who make it obvious they want your money.
Pure knowledge cannot be monetized. But translating the knowledge so that it can be useful to others takes work.
So if someone writes a great comic book or mystery story, should they not be allowed to charge for it? Should they be forced to have it taken with no compensation? That takes away the incentive to be creative.
Do you think the same about patents? If you created a new airfoil or a real hoverboard, should others be able to make it without your approval?
Just to create one product and live off its revenue forever discourages creativity. Current copyright laws favor large corporations too much. You can see the creative bankruptcy with companies such as Disney.
No argument from me there. But getting it stolen right out of the box only favors big money at the expense of freethinking innovators.
You are right, but that's a totally different conversation, albeit related. Disney's 100-year protection push is far out of balance. It's an issue of a reasonable balance that incentivizes individuals while also making sense.
Creative stuff should be monetized unless the creator wants to freely share, it’s the work and creation of the individual mind. How ever, relating to philosophy, mathematics, alchemy/chemistry , astronomy, language, literature, any form of knowledge and wisdom that is simply the rediscovery of universal laws, should never be with a price tag. The inner workings of creation do not belong to any single man, and this knowledge and wisdom should be granted freely to all who want to know.
Yes, the time period, as well as corporate ownership and BS patent extensions have made a mockery of some of the basic precepts of patent and copyright law.
"The rest of Wayback (the whole internet archive and accountability) is unaffected, assuming I understand it correctly."
Not so sure about that when MANY news articles of importance are behind PAYWALLS.
These and other "entertainment" sites could claim copyright violations if they find their stuff on the Wayback pretty much ruining the whole internet archive and accountability system.
Well, that's the way I read the summaries. I could be wrong.