Internet Archive Takes Another Step Towards Death
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 вер 2024
- Archive.org loses appeal in book copyright case with the Sony / Universal Music lawsuit still looming on the horizon.
The Internet Archive Loses Appeal. As Expected.
lunduke.locals...
More from The Lunduke Journal:
lunduke.com/
Although they were breaking the law, we do need the preservation of things for historical purposes.
The problem is that as it's said in the video, they didn't just archive but they went berzerk on the way to allow people to access the archive.
And as he also said, they went so far in a mad way that few billionaires will be willing to save them when they go bankrupt. If they were more moderate, there would be rich people to save them when they cry for help.
Large corporations disagree. They believe they should be the sole decider of whether media should be preserved and it should be only their decision. And once a piece of media stops being profitable, they believe they have the right to destroy that media. Which is why they've embraced the 'as a service' model. These corporations are also the ones with lobbying power. No-one is going to want to run a library or archiving service if they face ruinous consequences which means the only option means large corporations place everything behind a walled garden and paywalls. It will also destroy the concept of individuals being able to upload content to a website because we don't know if any copyright infringement may be committed by a single user - that will particularly affect UA-cam. What we are going to see is the Internet moving to a wholly corporate controlled landscape that most will be priced out of.
I'm big on IP reform but they definitely stepped hard into things that are hard to defend.
The word archive means storage not distribution. It's the difference between researching illegal substances and giving away free samples at frat parties.
@@tgheretford doesn't matter what corporations believe, unless they are going to sue to get laws changed. The law is in favors of archiving. Not piracy and unlimited distribution of copyrighted works.
Love how the Internet Archive is getting destroyed over copyright while the entire tech space is going apeshit over genAI, making the case that the same level of infringement is a core requirement of their business and thus fair use
I don't see how the two issues are connected.
I believe copyright law is probably very archaic but I am a "Linux bloke wot fixes computers", I am not a lawyer. What the Internet Archive has done appears to be something extremely foolish based on those archaic copyright laws, that is all that is going to matter in a court room.
@@terrydaktyllus1320 genAI is doing actual criminal activity. InternetArchive is legally purchasing its instances and is sharing them with others according to the instances they legally obtained. InternetArchive losing here sets a precedent that we're not legally allowed to share our things with others. On the other hand, genAI is outright stealing other people's work they never purchased or obtained legally, and then not only NOT sharing the stolen work for free BUT SELLING IT to others for profit.
@@terrydaktyllus1320 He's saying that the generative "AI" programs violate copyright law. While they don't necessarily copy outright, it's difficult to make a case otherwise based on how much the output matches certain inputs. If I drew a picture of Mickey Mouse, I guarantee you that Disney would win a case against me for copyright infringement even if it looked as primitive as Steamboat Willie, and if they went after the generative "AI" use they'd likely win there too.
@@anon_y_mousse Good point and well made.
@@terrydaktyllus1320 Scarlet Johansson sued ChatGPT for using her voice without permission.
Move everything to torrents ..?
Yop. Only way
10:00 older physical books get sold off from libraries and if it's not available in secondhand market, it's lost media. Not many will go to the trouble of scanning a full book.
I wish they were only being sold off on internet auctions with big discounts. The worthy books will always find a buyer. We need to start buying physical books again
Authors and publishers detest second hand sales and loaning because they don't make royalties. They want both banned and they would be happier if physical libraries disappeared, never mind digital ones.
@@tgheretford didn't know it. If it's true, it's very sad and I think we're doom as a civilization. Libraries are the cornerstone of civilizations
I want the Internet's history and old, historic software archived. Why are these people insisting on distributing recent books and music? This makes no sense. Just separate the functions and then let the stupid, copyright infringing part burn, as it will. It's utter madness.
Ah yes why do they insist on distributing recent books like Fahrenheit 451 a book written in the 60s.
The reality of the matter is that it has nothing to do with recency because digital data does not fall under a legal definition of "old" when it comes to copyright.
SO they will be freer to rewrite everything.
Someone understands. This isn't about "copyright" it's about their "right" to destroy all the copies.
"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed." - Guess who.
@@MarikHavair sorry, but whose quote is this?
@@SimplyDuker It's from the book 1984 by the author George Orwell, who as I understand it was some manner of disillusioned socialist.
His writings appear to have been informed (among other things) by his personal experience in the Spanish Civil War and how it was reported on by all sides of the press.
@@MarikHavair Ahh I see, thank you.
I'm planning to read the book. Is it good, in your honest opinion?
unpopular opinion but they should remove most of the books and focus on protecting the wayback machine since there is nothing like it that go back to before 2010. most of the books on there can be found on other places online .
It is not unpopular opinion, it is common sense. Save the wayback machine and remove these pdf and ISO files...
Websites would argue that they have the same arguments as the book publishers, that the historical record of their website should be entirely within their control and that preservation is not fair use.
Not unpopular. Wayback machine is very important!
If the $450M damages to Sony are awarded the wayback machine will be destroyed.
When the NSA, hell even Meta, Google and Apple archives all of our details and sells them noone bats an eye.
When Internet Archive, archives things the justice system looses their mind.
If they did unleash their mind, it would be the first time.
intelectual property is a disease
It's kicking down the ladder written into law, one of the most foul things a living thing can do.
What protects all the time and effort invested into production of a digital good? Without IP in many cases, one might as well stop producing such digital content and software.
In any case, you always have the option of moving to China. Go there, have fun.
@@emperorarasaka Everything builds on something that came previously, nothing is truly unique, should we pay the descendants of Pythagoras every time we use a standard math formula? If we had copyright 5000 years ago, humanity would have already gone extinct. We have a single super power as humans and that is building on top of the knowledge and experience of the previous generation.
@@owlmostdead9492 That's why copyright has 70 years expiry clause.
@@leonidiakovlev 70 years in software are like 1000 years, modern computing as a whole only exists for less than ~50.
The internet archive needs special status and authority. It is a public utility and service. Another public service, the police, they do things that are generally illegal without their bestowed authority. So hopefully it becomes regulated but is allowed to continue.
That's an excellent idea that probably requires legislation. Courts aren't usually the ones to say, "nah, keep flagrantly violating existing law" when said violations could lose money for large, powerful corporations.
I don't see congress taking this up
The defense needs to be a mass appeal to change the law, or set-aside some provision for archiving everything for society.
It's less about the archiving, more about the distribution.
wikipedia has a lot of money doing nothing
Not so. They have more planes and boats to buy.
@@justanothercomment416 😆 true
CIA toy.
Copyright should at least be reduced to the original 14 years after the publishing. 70 years after the author's death is a joke. One good source of information on this topic is the (free) book "Walled Culture" by Glyn Moody.
It would be much better if it was that way, but even if it was originally, big companies would just lobby to extend the copyright expiration date (for example the copyright extension act, colloquially dubbed the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act" where disney was able to extend the copyright expiration date by 20 years in 1998 in order to keep the copyright on Mickey Mouse.)
it should be as simple as if its not produced for more than a few years the copyright goes away so this way Disney can keep Mikey mouse if they are not lazy .and we can make copies of things that have become too rare because its not being produced anymore .
14 years for software is also way too long, make it a maximum of 5 years. If you can't monetise your fancy idea in 5 years, it was not meant to be.
@@owlmostdead9492 And then you'd have people waiting things out so that nothing would ever make money. If I just have to wait 5 years to see a movie or play a game for free, why bother ever paying to see movies or play games. Then the studios think, why bother making movies or games if they're not going to make their investment back. The reason for it to be at least that long is so that investment happens and new things get produced.
We need to torrent the entire internet
I'd love this idea if there wasn't so much doodoo on it.
Agreed, one magnet at a time
NSA already has.
@@pluto8404 speaking of which, nsa has said that they have so much data that the data is not very useful
@notuxnobux I trust that statement like a billionaire saying money isnt that important.
american copyright laws are stupid, absolutely excessive in length
its not american. its j*****h
Thanks to the berne convention, many countries have similar laws.
America is a 3rd world country in which only a few chosen ones are allowed to have human rights, and they're elites from monopoly corporations. Small companies and individuals have no right to education, information, health, food, water, everything needs to be wage slaved to get and many still don't have it.
@@skellious and other commerce treaties
I can legally scan a book I bought and make a digital copy of it in order to preserve it. Why can I not then lend a single instance of that book (including its physical instance) out to others? I'm forced to sequester the book I bought from the world? This seems like an overreach on our right to share our things with others.
If they'd only distributed a single copy then that would've been the end of it, but it was actually multiple copies while they only had one physical copy. Not that I agree with this law, but just that it is the law and that's why they're in trouble.
@@anon_y_mousse They have it set up so only one person can borrow at a time, like any library. I think they did a promotional period during covid when they relaxed it though.
@@rasputozen Yeah, that "promotional period" is exactly the point at which they violated copyright law.
@@anon_y_mousse Fair enough if that's all that's being litigated but when Sony is alleging $450M in damages it seems more far-reaching than that; like it's challenging the library model of IA itself.
@@rasputozen It's more that it's an inflated amount. If a book costs $9 to buy and a million people download a copy, then they can claim $9M in damages. Extrapolate that to 50 different books a million times over, and it was almost assuredly far more, then you start to see where they come up with such a bovine excrement number. In reality, most people that would partake would either buy a copy for themselves after previewing it, or they would never have bought a copy. So the amount of damages isn't realistic, even if it's based on real world usage.
Piracy is not theft. When you are copying a program, the author still has its original copy, therefore it's not a theft. A theft is taking something from someone without permission. Is making a copy of your neighbour's picture theft? No.
Piracy has nothing to do with theft - someone who steals a book from a store is committing theft, not piracy.
Copying becomes piracy when it can be demonstrated that the copyright owner can demonstrate financial loss because of someone else copying their works. If the person doing the copying wouldn't have purchased the item otherwise, then it's probably extremely difficult to claim piracy.
It's for this same reason that there's a "grey area" over "abandonware" and old game ROMs - because if that stuff is not available for sale currently, then it's not possible to demonstrate financial loss, and therefore piracy, when others just copy that stuff for their own use.
Note that piracy tends to be used as a term more for "reselling" (i.e. "making a profit from") someone else's works.
Even piracy is too strong a term for what is being done, it is copying, and the only way it should properly be referred to is copying, piracy is related to actual illegal actions like stealing ships and killing people.
That is all that is being done, I am copying patterns of information into media I own.
This is likely going to result in a lot of works being lost to history because the Internet Archive wasn't just preserving books; they were also preserving websites via the Wayback Machine, software, and games. In many cases, the original copyright owner had become defunct. This will be a loss for humanity, no matter which side of the fence you sit on.
It was meant to affect books.
Internet Archive is fair use.
If the courts decide that the Internet Archive is not fair use, nor are physical libraries. This is a power grab to ensure that publishers have total control of media to get you to pay for media so they make royalties from every individual who wishes to consume that media.
@@tgheretford Yeah, the corporations want to 1.) have right to free speech 2.) Force us into arbitration, 3.) censor us and take our rights, so f-um. Piracy is 100% justified.
@@tgheretford Media preservation is legal. "Section 108 gives libraries and archives the ability to make some copies, including preservation copies, without violating the exclusive rights of the copyright owner." - Source from the Digital Preservation Management article about legal issues.
@@Box1-lf9hv I would like to know how Google vs Oracle fits here, where SCOTUS said you can't use a contract to stop people from making fair use. Just because the book author claims they have a contract that prevents fair use for education, news, and commentary doesn't mean that is a legal contract. Is it fair use to loan a copy of a book to someone? Yes. You have no right to stop people from loaning books. The question is, was it legal to archive? I believe yes. I personally don't see a distinction between a virtual library and a real-world on, other than it's easier to go to the virtual one. Either one I can scan the books.
Public libraries are often misunderstood, but one aspect they excel in is digital lending through services like OverDrive, which has been around for many years. These legal e-books and audiobooks are provided by publishers to libraries, allowing users to access them remotely. This means you don't need to physically visit a library anymore.
I'm disappointed that The Internet Archive didn't take the time to research how public libraries function when presenting their case. Legal digital lending has been an option for years, and it's essential to recognize this.
However, I do believe there should be mechanisms in place to facilitate the digital distribution of materials that are no longer commercially available due to limited copies, geographical restrictions, or historical significance. In such cases, it may be challenging to find the current owner of the material, as was seen with GOG's efforts to locate the owners of retro video games.
Finding the rightsholders can take years, and even then, it's often necessary to negotiate for permission to modernize and share these materials. Something needs to change so that valuable cultural heritage isn't lost forever.
SHHHHHHH! Don't talk about OverDrive or they'll come for it next.
😆🤦♂😭
Was that ever sued? If not, it's in a position no better than internet archive...also a real library doesn't need 'permision'
Legal digital lending would also mean that a VERY large portion of the Internet Archive would suddenly become exclusive to the U.S.
Sure, this can be circumvented with a VPN, but imagine a situation where the majority of content on UA-cam was restricted to residents of the U.S.
@@eye776 pathetic, in the land of free the Copyright used to be 14 years and now they want to rent, rather than sell books, and here you are carrying water for them, pffft, makes me want to open an underground library RIGHT NOW, and it should you, too, unless you have some financial incentive to keep the status quo!
@@eye776 I have seen stories about sidewalk libraries (Free Outdoor Library, book-sharing boxes) being taken down by police and local governments. It appears that some municipalities are more strict than others when it comes to permitting such projects. Some have more important things to worry about.
This has wide reaching consequences, right down to physical libraries and every other archiving service. The large conglomerates will ensure that all information, ideas and knowledge will be placed behind expensive paywalls in the same manner as peer reviewed papers are and society will be the worse for it. They want full and absolute control of all of that for their own profit, power and control. They detest loaning, renting and second hand sales because it deprives them of a royalty from a purchase. They do not want you renting a book, they want you to buy it. If the media is out of print, they want you to go without.
Like getting arrested for theft for using a cloning ray at Walmart
hate it when that happens
Happens all the time, it is very important to have steady aim
Copyright was originally supposed to be an incentive, not a right perse in the United States as per Federalist Paper 43. When we started viewing it as a right, as a way to 'protect' what we consider our 'intellectual property', things went off the rails very quickly. If a copyright is merely an incentive and not something that protects property rights, then a MUCH shorter duration would make more sense than what we have now.
It wouldn't completely solve the IA's problem, but...
3:35 their scanned books have no PDF to download, the PDF are a very special case and hard to get.
I got plenty off there before this stink came up from the publishing mafia!
Good video and very proper take on the situation. I just wanted to check, have you ever covered the connection between Wikipedia and Fandom? How Jimmy Wales is the president of Fandom while being on the board for the Wikimedia Foundation and the face of Wikipedia? They also use donated funds to develop MediaWiki which then gets used on Fandom which is full of ads. It's all very slimy and I'm shocked Jimmy can put his face anywhere without being publicly shamed and ridiculed.
I'm in favor of the Internet Archive, but it's very clear it's been horribly mismanaged.
Suspiciously so.
If libraries didn't exist yet they sure would be illegal to create nowadays
Two options here:
1) Each downloads just a bit of it and makes it available via torrents or even just store it locally until it can be shared when needed, i.e. google drive, megadrive, etc
2) Plenty of less than "will play by the rules" websites around, get my meaning......
..there are 99 petabytes in that site. I doubt that torrents and sites can hold all that =(
@@LuisYomba Agreed but even if a small amount is able to be "preserved", it's better than nothing at all.
@@LuisYombanot in a single torrent of course. And a torent is just a simple meta file, it doesn't store the data. The clients are storing the data. Yes torrent is the only safe way
I thought most things on the internet archive are already available via torrent. That's how I have been downloading things from IA. I look for the torrent link and add it to my torrent client.
@@MelroyvandenBerg anyone can hold the metadata in 1 drive, who is going to seed 99 petabytes ?
Is there any way to save the content of the IA?
Put IA into a AI😅
Sectioned out magnet links. For Software, Books, Music, Videos, etc. Can hold a couple hundred GBs per a single magnet hash only. Anna's Archive does that with their book torrents using JSON to store each link.
@@Drowsy-All-Day yea that would also work!
@@MelroyvandenBergNo.
@@Box1-lf9hv yes
This is a really frustrating situation. I never understood the angle of making it a free service in the first place. I would have no issue paying a small fee to view books/CDs/DVDs/etc online, even if I can't download a copy to keep (I mean, you can always just take screen captures, record the audio, or possibly grab a direct link from the website code, but most people aren't going to do that, when they could just find a pirated copy elsewhere).
I've always been of the opinion that the best way to fight piracy, is make it easy and affordable for people to do the right thing, instead.
Yes, because humanity has no rights to keep historical records except if there's money involved... how stupid.
Imagine if we had to pay to read Homer, Virgil nowadays.
@@gustavomachado3488 Bad take. I'm not saying we should have to pay for things that are outside of copyright limitations (though there is still something to be said for paying a few pennies to the hosting service, if our taxes don't already cover it), but if the authors are still alive & the copyright is valid, they should get paid fairly.
There could be some reform in the law regarding perpetual copyrights, but it's hard to know where to draw the line.
Their argument would be that the only legal way should be through DRM riddle content direct from the publisher, with them having full control of the media and you should be made to pay handsomely to read a copy with no ownership rights and where it can be pulled from you with little to no notice. It will paywall information, ideas and knowledge exclusively for the rich. Ultimately one of the big consequences of these lawsuits is the abolition of user generated content and where everything on the Internet is controlled behind paywalls by large conglomerates.
@@tgheretford Even if we abolish copyright law and force all intellectual property into the public domain, doesn't automatically guarantee access for all. Someone still has to make copies and distribute them, which is not a free process, and nobody has a right to someone else's labor, time, or other resources....but that goes right back around where the person who made the content shouldn't be required to do so for free.
intellectual property law is fundamentally broken. change my mind
It was never broken. It was intentionally made this way.
it's time to pirate everything.
I don't know what's more ridiculous, internet archive defense or the numbers pulled out on the lawsuit. I mean, internet archive is not responsable of sonny losing half a billion dollars. The number just can't be that big.
A foot note in the soon forgotten origin of the ministry of truth.
Maybe the owners are being paid off to destroy the Archive. I think the Wayback Machine is the target, not the Archive.
Why aren't our legislators stepping in to correct the law?
simple answer.. lobbying.
Who do you think benefits from the Archive's legal destruction?
@@JadedWarlock the people brib- I mean donating to politicians?
What is there to correct? Suddenly copyright law is bad, because it protects "evil companies". Don't forget that the same law helps OSS software.
lol
They shouldn't need permission
Sorry, a little hard to follow. Title says "Internet Archive" but then you describe UA-cam.
Just for the record, there is an alternative for publications - Anna's Archive.
23:53 *dog barks*
You said it: It's like they (internet archive) are trying to take down themselves.
I'm assuming the worst and archiving all my pre-2000 toys from M$ and Borland, compilers and the like. I honestly believe Copyright should be 25 years then GTFO.
They need some exception for archiving, even if it's not visible today. No rewriting history should be allowed.
anyone got some spare HD's? we need to archive the archive asap
localized censored subscripson based libraries where all controversial is gone will replace archive
Last gasp of old school publishing. The current order is falling and trying to take down everything with it. Soon everything will change. You can't stop technology
why didn't they just stick to archiving web-pages which was the core feature? there would have been a proper fair-use case for that. most people don't even know of the other features that're takinfg them down.
Because those webpage archives are also copyrighted and face the same issues as hosting books or music.
Time to buy another nas and get to work.
Welp. Here's where i continue getting what i can before it goes dark.
It should be completely legal to do a one-to-one without permission.
ARCHIVE THE ARCHIVE
I feel like the Internet Archive is what the Library of Congress should be. While they preserve a lot of things, they mostly hide it away in their vaults or require a physical presence to make use of the materials. I know, copyright law, but there should be some allowances made for the LoC. I don't know if they preserve websites either, and that's one of the most important things that the IA does which I also use them for. Although, I personally feel like our copyright law should go back to being 14 years. If that was the limit, then things would make more sense and the IA could distribute anything that was 14 years and older without any worry. For that matter, so could the LoC.
Who could have expected, relying on one entity to archive things is dumb.
The webarchive will be scrapped too it was never going to be "permanent"
It was meant for books.
They have the right to archive. That's already been ruled in court! That shouldn't even be in question, why frame it like that? This has already been settled in the Google Books case.
They broke the law by removing the physical copy / digital copy restriction. That was a very dumb decision. Morally correct? Maybe, but not if it hurts your entire organization in the long run.
should've just invested in running a cpu seeding torrents
So, it seems like the copyright law should be modified to the digital Age we're living in. Apparently they do apply the copyright law from the pre-digital Age to the current Internet. This has to change.
The Internet Archive is a website for archival purposes. All they do is to make a digital copy of the content for archival purposes. Naturally they don't ask for permission to do so - as it wouldn't be always possible to do it - and it would be bothersome. And naturally they distribute the archived content - after the original content was long ago gone.
The Internet Archive did scan/distribute the books w/o permission, that's true. But they simply couldn't afford to ask for permission for all those books, just because of the amount of those to scan. And of course they're (currently) not allowed to scan/distribute w/o permission - the copyright law is strict there. So we just need to adapt the copyright law.
One of the simplest things we could do is to explicitly exclude archival websites from the copyright law. This would mean, the copyright law generally apply to anything protected by it - except that content is archived on the public Internet Archive resource.
The public needs to have access to the archived content - in the worst case these kind of websites should be shielded by the US government.
It's not pronounced 'hatchet,' it's pronounced 'ha-SHETT.'
Yeah, their appeal was stupid, but also the law is wrong here. We should have a massive legislative reform to make projects like the Internet Archive legally protected. Also, it is dishonest of Lunduke to pretend that publishers have no agency in this matter when they in fact do have agency and responsibility. Not only is suing the Internet Archive a choice they are making for which they are morally responsible but also, they are responsible for making these laws in the first place. The publishers lobbyists wrote the intellectual property laws.
Why hasnt anyone tried to develop a file format that would prevent the books from being downloaded or straight copied? Copying them by hand would be akin to memorizing a paragraph at a library then transcribing it at home. There are websites that prevent the visitor from copying text on them, this would be similar. I dont see why this wouldn't solve the issue they're having.
It would also be theoretically safer than pdf if the file cannot be downloaded and reuploaded with injected malicious code.
Lol, if it cannot be copied, It is not copyrightable ... Copying is in it self is legal. Using the copy to 'infringe' its market is the crime. Copyright is to encourage copying! This goes back to the 16th century and the printing press.
The irony: if the internet archive was hosted in the Russian dictatorship, they wouldn't had any problem, since Russia is the greatest piracy paradise in the world.
The notion that the digital storage of this brief chapter of human culture can or even should be preserved has always been a fantasy.
I was walking down the street one day and found in a free box an excellent history book, from 1909. It had bever been read. Some of its signatures had never been cut. Signatures are when the block of pages are folded up then edges trimmed so you can open it. Signatures were sewn into the spine. Still are in quality books.
I carefully cut open the signatures and read the book. Excellent paper, almost perfect condition after 100 years. Excellent book too.
No digital storage media can last in this way, and the few that can endure even 100 years, like archival cds, require tech to read them that is created by a massively unsustainable globalized production system that only works when scaled up massively.
And most data stored will never see durable storage. Particularly not solid state, which basically starts to evaporate and dissolve over time.
I like to think of this era as a future black hole with hints of what it was to future historians. Nobody will be finding 2000 year old ssd storage and be able to decipher them the way we can do with 2000 year old papyrus scrolls.
There's a saying that the more commonplace a media was in its era, the less likely that it's preserved. Think my example of a high quality academic history book vs a pulp fiction story from the same year.
I always liked the idea of internet archive but found it a quixotic lost cause, particularly when web content moved from flat files to db and js generated dynamic content.
Thanks for reading my mind. These are precisely the thoughts I've had about archival for a few years now. One needs to look at the bigger picture, not just focus on forgettable 20-year-old digital items that are incredibly difficult to preserve for posterity. Part of me wonders if the panic of losing some digital files is a sign of our materialist times. Our ancestors from just 100 years ago had fewer things, but lived healthier, wiser lives; we have so much, but are we better for it? Or are we simply spoiled children who want every toy in the toystore and cry loudly when we can't get them? E. O. Wilson's quote from Consilience also comes to mind: We are drowning in information, while starving for wisdom.
@@HPLovecraftsCat9 storage is not an abstraction for me. I had a job where one part was to create a robust redundant yet affordable backup system for data that grew roughly at the rate of physical storage aka hardware costs and capacities would support, but towards the end when cloud became a thing, more data than was affordable or practical to move to cloud. Plus cloud has an off switch which is activated the moment you don't pay your storage provider. Also, even aws admits their cloud storage is not robust or reliable. If you dig into their offerings you can get what is essentially tape backup. Not cloud at all. For good reason.
I did this job through enough hardware generations to get a good understanding of storage reality. I'd say a solid 99% plus of users are incapable of doing robust backups themselves. They are expensive and require at a minimum, bare minimum, always having twice the storage capacity you use. And replacing drives when they near EOL. The funniest is Apple's time machine, which is an always on external drive... What could go wrong lol.
Steve Albini of Electrical Audio doesn't use digital recording because he's been around long enough to see the reality of real life of digital storage media generations and playback equipment.
Considering tape itself if high end probably lasts no more than 50 years this gives you a sense of how unreliable digital storage is over time. This has changed slightly over last 20 years as interfaces like usb and sata became more prevalent but the reality of needing to transfer data that is digitally stored as media nears eol doesn't go away.
Your rough view of the meta narrative I tend to agree with. EO Wilson is on my to read list but haven't gotten there yet.
I would add one thing to it: digital impermanent storage is required because as humanity shoots way past sustainable population and consumption levels, it's literally not possible to store physical media in proportion to numbers of humans. Nor can wisdom that can result in meaningful action occur when it is forced into a profoundly unwise material reality.
Historically this isn't new. The Ottoman empire collected a lot of data, analog, but was unable to use it effectively, so it got stored in big warehouses.
We're hitting that issue now, which is the real driver behind machine leaning, which, having no intelligence or understanding, isn't AI.But humans can't handle the amount of digital data we are generating. Machine learning is probably one of the least efficient technologies humanity has ever devised, and most complex, yet oddly remarkably unreliable, which strongly suggests we might have hit the maxima of the tech vs sustainability bell curve.
If you want a laugh, tech wonder boy Elon Musk used microsd storage card in Tesla's without bothering to read the life write cycles of the microsd drive. So they started failing. Just one little example of the bigger problem.
@@HPLovecraftsCat9 agreed largely. Yt ate my response. That's alleged "AI" trying to filter with neither intelligence nor understanding. Don't look for wisdom in tech, this industry is built on unsustainability to its very core. In fact I'd argue unsustainability itself forced the development of computing. Too hard to manually manage this many humans and the resource flows required to keep them going. This may be why in the end it doesn't matter if this brief historical blip remains unrecordable for future historians. I did backup stuff for work for years and saw the reality of hardware generations, and the costs of redundant robust backups.
@@noname-ll2vk YT often eats my responses too. Annoying to play Sherlock Holmes to get things through. I agree with you. The fleeting nature of tech is why I don't care about, say, language wars the way I used to. I feel like a grifter, because a job in tech makes me money, but the tech dam is built on a foundation of sand. I'm just here for the ride while it lasts; I think a return to books and board games over films and video games is inevitable. Of all things to come out of tech, the digital printing press may be the most useful, because it allows a selection of noteworthy things to be preserved for future generations - which ironically would mainly be pre-tech-era writings. Maybe in the future, “going offline” will trend in the youth.
@Bryan Lunduke (sorry this will be long)
There's some stuff missing in your take on this issue (I hail from Canada so my argument might not be valid in the US).
Up north you are allowed to make a PERSONAL copy of a media (you own). That exception drives corporations and property owners completely bonkers. Specifically in the case of music, this industry wants you to pay for each medium you listen this music on. Early on the lawmakers in Canada agreed rights should not be forever and absolute. Case in point : you are allowed to record from TV or from radio.
The whole point is, if you don't go around selling that personal copy (that is the essence of piracy) then you're probably OK (it's still a grey zone which is a shame).
Now here comes the curve balls.
1. The famous DMCA (digital millenium copyright act) did a trick on everyone. You're still somewhat allowed to make a personal copy but you can't crack the encryption used. The industry then encrypted everything. Everyone cracks the encryption anyways but it's gone from an accepted practice to somewhat of a crime.
2. The word "piracy" was then altered by numerous public campaigns and now means "to make a copy, in any way, of any copyrighted material". It includes slamming the hammer on people on UA-cam teaching students how to play guitar, even when taking a bar or two only (one of many legitimate uses). Sure, you have stuff like TIVO and other recording mechanisms but we are a hair away from the industry calling that piracy too. It's gotten so ridiculous a conductor friend of mine got a UA-cam strike because he published his orchestra playing Pachelbel's canon ... WHAT??? That piece is 380 years old!
So on top of stripping people's legal right to a personal copy using a back door, there's work changing the vocabulary in order to convince people they have no rights on the music / media they not only love but very often pay for.
It can be argued that the Internet Archive actually supports your right to a personal copy, as if you recorded it on the radio or some time shifting mechanism. Are you going to sell that recording? Are you going to make money off that music? That's very unlikely. If there's no profit then (reasonable) consideration should be given. It's not piracy as soon as a copy is made. It should be piracy if you take that copy, go to the market and sell it without sharing your profit. The Internet Archive does not run a business and sell copies of whatever it has.
This is actually revealing of what those publishing houses and copyright holders actually think. When they own a piece of copyright, they mostly care about the money they will make selling it. Arguments can be made about the fact that they don't really love what they're selling. We do. And we're being called pirates because we want a copy in the car, on our walkman, etc.
All in all, courts will be courts and courts usually feed themselves with their own production : if a copyright claim is outrageous it's likely to be given a pass ... because the court has sided historically with this industry. It's not as much justice as it is repeating itself.
The old stuff.. Nostalgia
That's bad.
The "can't look up what the controversial comment/deleted record of a warcrime looked before the edit" - bad.
Hope someone builds a storage for a crawler network in a less democratic country.
Sad behause I not have money and servers to save it...
Internet Archive is not stupid. They are doing all this intentionally and it's just classic mind games done primarily by people associated with one very specific political movement.
They actually are anti-property (here, at least digitally so) and primarily want to use their site as a store of pirated content. The reason they bundle it all up with other "good" stuff like the web archival, or storing of old and abandoned content is so that they can fall back and use those as the "but but for good of society" argument and earn some sympathy.
Again, they are not stupid. This is intentional. They know what they are doing.
If we're doing Farenheit 451 for real, I bagsy The Snowman by Raymond Briggs
If I get sued nobody cares. If you get sued, I don't care. That's just the way it is 😁
It's all encoded in the gematria and date numerology. ie, the lawsuit was brought on June 1st 2020. Exactly 222 weeks and 2 days before IA lost its appeals. The output of "End of the Internet Archive" is 248 (Abraham, father of a multitude) ordinal and 122 pythagorean. The name of its program was "National Emergency Library". 122 pythagorean. So the name of what killed it matches the phrase indicating its demise. There's a lot around the number 118 as well. Also this conclouded on September 4th, the 248th day of the year.
Elites are very in to the code of this illusion.
Oh, also it ties to an ongoing Bioshock riddle for me. Andrew Ryan's initials give digits 118 ordinal, 19 pythagorean. It's just IA backwards. "The end of Ryan is the end of the self", says Sofia Lamb. As the followers of the collectivist lamb (3142) converge on the world. 19 is the 8th prime.
Sounds crazy but it really does work that way. Can't even post the other stuff I've found about mind-bomb 1, ADAM proteins, and Notch signaling.
@@Acetyl53 send links
@@nosotrosloslobosestamosreg4115 Not possible on youtube.
Take some meds bro
i wanna keep the legacy of searchlores and Fravia+
tbh it sounds like a support group of alimony-"deserving" women wrote that legal appeal.
I got the feeling Internet Archive became anti capitalist and marxist in the 2010's
I love the Internet Archive. But let's play this through: Assuming the IA goes bankrupt, would it be possible for someone else taking over and just not doing anything illegal going forward? I'm grasping at straws here.
No. Hence decentralized solution is required. Like torrents.
the internet archive has always been destined to be destroyed. they need to change countries or have multiple servers or do something heh.
UA-cam removed my comment as spam probably but anyway Russia could be their best bet alongside using BitTorrent to distribute archive material
if they lose the case they pay money. what is this death you speak of?
Bankruptcy, eventual dissolution and selling off of assets to pay back the debt.
@@Drowsy-All-DayDonation is the thing that can prevent it.
@@Box1-lf9hv Donations are probably not going to be able to cover the cost of not only still running the archive but paying the legal damages that the companies are going to seek from this suit alongside fees but the second lawsuit as well and it's costs and the potential of multiple copyright lawsuits from other major rights holders in other forms of media. Who knows though, maybe a miracle will happen.
That appeal was going to be a great success 😄
I have a very simple solution to all these problems: abolish copyright completely, abolish patents, abolish trademark law
These rights have been abused several times by both sides. From the side of the open source developers in order to obtain internal documents. Abuse by companies. And then the third possibility: companies that meant well, did it wrong, were then sued and stopped development.
But this would also mean that companies would be allowed to use any available software without having to comply with the licenses, and vice versa.
Anyone who has the power to save this institution, has their own institutions to defend, institutions that would only benefit by its loss. Help is not coming.
think the archive got greedy now they put the rest of their content at risk.
They're not greedy.
Welcome to capitalism, my friends. You have no rights, only the bourgeoisie has rights.
Anyone who writes a book has a right - copyright.
@@Mackenway How long should a copyright last? Should the current duration remain the same?
@@Mackenway that person couldn't write that book if not for the whole society working so that person could stop and write a book. To have enough knowledge to write a book, be it fiction or a textbook, that person had to acquire knowledge built upon the works of millions of other people.
Get it? You can't see past your nose.
@@Mackenway Enjoy paying massive amounts for a book when the publisher becomes the only game in town to view that media with you having no rights of ownership, it's riddled with DRM and you pay for it as a service.
:\
Perhaps the "we're losing money doing this" defense was intended to address an allegation of unjust enrichment, which is a common component of copyright lawsuits.