It looks like the internet archive is needed assistance, I just heard about this today and figured lemmy could help spread this message around

  • LiveLM@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    25 days ago

    Just sent them a couple of bucks. Wish I could give more but the conversion rate on my currency is atrocious lol 🫠

  • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    25 days ago

    They should have:

    • Not sell out to AI.
    • Deleted doxxing info (they already removed stuff like Mike Matei’s racist webcomics on behalf of Mike Matei).
    • Emmie@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      24 days ago

      Seriously no one cares if you downvote or upvote stuff. Get lost with your inept attempt at manipulation

      Yeah and I was supposed to stay calm and cute this whole week see what you have done with your shitty comment?

        • Emmie@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          24 days ago

          Yeah where? You just said down voted like your personal opinion on the post mattered. Then edited to say upvoted like anyone cared or you were deluded into thinking it was thanks to your little tiny point down

          Maybe I am angry but the frikin internet archive is going down, I hate this shit

  • Emmie@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    25 days ago

    Fuck.

    I really hope someone gets hold of the data and shares it on p2p or otherwise. If all this data is deleted it would be equivalent to nuking pyramids or burning Picasso paintings.

    • The Doctor@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      24 days ago

      That’s one of the reasons why uploads to the Archive have torrents.

      Now if they’d just fix the damn tracker…

    • menemen@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      25 days ago

      Honestly, I’d say it would be much much worse than your examples. It would be erasing parts of history itself.

      • Emmie@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        25 days ago

        Fuck yes, we need to get our hands on this stuff for fucks sake. I have shit there I don’t even know I need yet

        Can someone fucking near get their ass there and do a legendary copy paste operation on a massive scale

      • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        24 days ago

        Exactly. Losing Internet and digital history would create another dark ages for future historians. Everything we’ve done would just be gone.

        If I had more money than humanly usable I would create a project that transcribes wikipedia or whatever onto stone/metal plates so it’s not forgotten.

  • e$tGyr#J2pqM8v@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    24 days ago

    Europe is voting this weekend. If you care about copyright reform, you should consider voting for the European Pirate Party. IA is probably in the wrong here, legally. But many would argue it’s morally right to have free access to information. Sure, shadow libraries are popping up everywhere and we have access to more information than ever before, but if we really want access for everyone, we need different copyright laws, and for that we need politicians.

    • dko1905@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      24 days ago

      Sadly in countries without a pirate party, like Denmark, you can’t (as far as I know) vote for the EP pirate party.

      • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        24 days ago

        Does voting for a party like that even help anything? I’m asking because my voting experience is US, and everyone knows how many parties matter here. So I’m curious.

        • IdleSheep@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          24 days ago

          Yes. In most European countries even small parties can get seats. In my country there are 8 parties in parliament, for example, and 2 of them didn’t use to be there 2 election cycles ago (they were too small/new 8 years ago but eventually grew in popularity and got enough votes for representation).

          Of course if they only have 1 or 2 members in parliament they typcily tend to form coalitions with other like-minded parties so they can get more voting power.

          • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            24 days ago

            I wonder how many people that aren’t from the US running around telling people to vote third party their are, because of what you just described.

        • viking@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          24 days ago

          It does a bit, since every party will be represented in the European council based on the number of votes they have. It’s not an election where the winner takes all.

          I think the pirates had one or two representatives in the council, which is enough to start debates and make proposals. They obviously can’t push anything through by themselves.

    • EmilieEvans@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      24 days ago

      For Germean voters there is the WahloMat to help with the voting choice (a dozen of questions and in the end shows how much overlap there is with all the parties): https://www.wahl-o-mat.de/europawahl2024/app/main_app.html

      The major issue is that if you care about CopyRight: Party A. Easier to comply with regulation: Party B. Migration: Party C. Environment: Party D.

      And all of the choices (A-D) have some very removed, prominent positions that you strongly oppose and in the end, have no clue what to elect and choose the least worst option and hope for the best.

  • Kowowow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    25 days ago

    Is there any way to use my own computer to take up summer off the dose traffic?

  • Rekorse@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    25 days ago

    Why can’t anyone spot a grift anymore? The IA is hugely profitable, and is very clearly crafting PR statements designed to increase donations. Has noone had their trust abused before? If they were trying to make change around this subject they wouldnt be so dishonest in their messaging.

    IA are not Robin Hood.

      • ulterno@lemmy.kde.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        25 days ago

        Same question here. How can they be profitable if they are a registered non-profit?

        Is it somehow possible to pay employees exorbitant salaries, similar to Mozilla’s CEO?

        • delirious_owl@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          25 days ago

          Non profit doesn’t mean revenue can’t exceed expenses. It means that the org can’t be owned by investors, and the org can’t pay dividends.

          • ulterno@lemmy.kde.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            25 days ago

            Interesting. And there really is nothing stopping someone in control from getting themselves a huge portion of it, while laying off staff?

            That seems like a huge flaw that someone with the required people skills (read, social engineering) can exploit.

            Anti Commercial-AI license

            • Emmie@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              25 days ago

              Of course, it happens all the time with many non profit orgs. They even pest you and call people for donations. You didn’t know?

              My grandma is pestered daily from some organisations that ‚help poor kids’ or whatever. Pretty lucrative business.

              Some even get public money and are connected to politicans that sometimes launder public money through them, seemingly with no consequences.

              Legitimate ones will never whore for cash with spam emails or calls and won’t be connected to government. All the rest are just get rich schemes.

              You have to do proper, thorough research before you donate money to some kids helping org or similar. Else you will just fund someone’s Porsche.

            • delirious_owl@discuss.online
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              25 days ago

              Thats not a violation of being a nonprofit. If someone does work, they should get paid for their work.

              The point of a nonprofit is to prevent folks who don’t work from stealing the org’s cash. Really, this is the baseline for any ethical org. All for-profit companies should just straight-up be illegal to form.

  • EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    25 days ago

    Modern corporations are a damned plague. Most of these fuckers would destroy our whole cultural heritage in a heartbeat if it meant making a profit.

    Yes, corporations exist to make profit, but come on, there are limits.

    • Einar@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      25 days ago

      there are limits

      I am glad you have a moral centre.

      But that is the capitalist way. A Redditor once wrote: “*Corporations have no morals, no ethics, no code of conduct, no feelings, no empathy, and zero accountability. They have one goal and one goal only: to increase profits at all costs.”

      Case in point: the climate crisis. Corporations are literally destroying their own home for a symbol of success that, like their products, is man-made: money. It is the ultimate pursuit of vanity.

      Crazy, if you think about it for a moment.

      • z00s@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        25 days ago

        And yet by law in some places (the US being one, I believe) they are treated as people, with certain rights.

        • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          25 days ago

          Like people, but with a feduciary responsibility to gain wealth at every opportunity. Corporations are almost like vampires: they don’t need food or water, they don’t age, they have inhuman power, yet they wear the guise of people; they pass as human to make it easier to drain us of our blood, an endless thirst they feel compelled to heed.

      • MonkderDritte@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        25 days ago

        Yeah. The monsters gnawing away at nature, public infrastructure, your friends? They are called corporations.
        Btw, megacorps have multiple faces and are especially hungry.

      • Scolding0513@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        25 days ago

        i guess it doesnt matter to the execs, they will always have their little islands to live on while they destroy the rest of the world

      • jherazob@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        25 days ago

        The AI techbros wanna scare you with tales of AI becoming sentient and going rogue to destroy us all, when corporations, mindless machines made out of people to maximize profits at all cost, are already doing all that

      • Citizen@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        25 days ago

        Agreed, now what do we do about it?

        I quit a very very well paid IT job in a very big corp because I did not want to participate to their anti-human, anti-planet shit…

        What are you doing about it?

        • Asafum@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          25 days ago

          I decided not to pursue my interest in geology because I didn’t want to be stuck with the only employment options being oil companies.

          It sucks that we need to give up so much even though they keep destroying and pillaging.

          • Citizen@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            24 days ago

            Respect! Hope you will find your way following your passion and working for the Good!

        • EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          24 days ago

          What am I doing about it? For the most part, nothing at the moment besides actively refusing to purchase from a small number of companies—Nestlé, Walmart, Amazon, etc—mostly out of principal as I’m not illusioned enough to think one person will make a difference in this sense). Primarily because at the moment I live in a dead-end job making barely enough money to buy food and trying to keep my car from disintegrating long enough for me to get to work and back.

          Frankly, I’d love to do more, but there’s really not much I can do. Doesn’t mean I have to like it though. Just because you don’t have an alternative ready doesn’t mean you’re not allowed to dislike the current situation.

      • EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        24 days ago

        I agree that that is the capitalist way, which is one of the reasons I hate capitalism. I’m no tankie, but I believe there are other ways, even ways that still use personal property as well as currency, beyond capitalism, which is just the use of personal property and currency to obtain more personal property and currency at all costs in an endless cycle.

  • simple@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    25 days ago

    Everyone that wants context should read this: https://lunduke.substack.com/p/the-internet-archives-last-ditch

    Listen, I love the IA and everything they stand for, but they’re not winning this. They fucked up and gave away copyrighted content, for free, in unlimited amounts during covid. They then proceed to melt down in court because they know it’s impossible to win. Now they’re seeking empathy from everyone and not talking about why they got sued - which is giving away potentially millions of copies of other people’s work…

      • Gsus4@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        25 days ago

        I think this explains his stance a bit https://piped.kavin.rocks/watch?v=rRDEkMAcwrQ I agree with some bits (because code quality does matter more than being nice when it is your profession), disagree with some (because being a grumpy idiot will harm your ability to build on collaborative projects).

        PS: but yea, then there is also the video about the tech industry where he cherrypicks outrage and contradicts himself and agrees that Linus is rude and divisive…which sort of discredits him, because he only seems to like angry but competent people when they agree with him.

    • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      25 days ago

      And everyone that wants unbiased context should read the wikipedia page:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hachette_v._Internet_Archive

      The judgment basically completely ignored IA’s arguments towards fair use. EFF filed an amicus brief that explains how baseless the judgment was. Assuming the entire US court system isn’t in the corporate pocket yet they will win this on appeal.

      It’s ridiculous to assume that an organization whose main purpose is data archival would knowingly and blatantly ignore copyright law. IA didn’t ignore it, they did they homework and saw that their use qualified as fair use. Then they met a judge who doesn’t give a shit about that. Nobody can prepare for that in advance.

      • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        25 days ago

        Their argument towards fair use wasn’t ignored. It was inapplicable.

        It’s ridiculous to assume that an organization whose main purpose is data archival would knowingly and blatantly ignore copyright law

        Except that’s exactly what they did. They knowingly and blatantly violated copyright law. They had a system in place to ensure fair use compliance. They intentionally disabled that system, in violation of fair use, to allow unlimited free downloads of the books they had archived.

        IA’s entire argument was basically “but we’re a library” and totally missed the part where even public libraries need to comply with copyright law. Even with ebooks, they can’t simply distribute an unlimited number of copies; They have licensing agreements in place, for a specific number of specific ebooks to be checked out at any one time. And they have to use time-locked DRM to ensure compliance, by automatically revoking users’ reading ability when their check-out time is up. IA did precisely none of that.

      • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        25 days ago

        In this case, they absolutely did. They had a CDL in place specifically to comply with copyright law, and they willfully and intentionally disabled it.

        The publishers also had arrangements with local libraries to expand their ebook selections. Most libraries have ebook and audiobook deals worked out with the publishers, and those were expanded during the lockdowns. Many of the partner libraries preferred those systems to the CDL because they served their citizens directly. A small town in Nebraska didn’t have to worry about having a wait list of 3000 people ahead of the local citizen whose taxes had actually bought the license the Internet Archive wanted to borrow.

        The Internet Archive held a press conference right before the ruling comparing the National Emergency Library to winter-library lands, but that’s simply not accurate. The CDL they had in place before and after was inter-library loaning. The CDL was like setting up printing presses in the library and copying books for free and handing them out to anyone.

        Under the existing CDL, they could have verified that partner libraries had stopped lending their phycical copies of the books and made more copies of the ebooks available for checkout instead of just making it unlimited and they’d have legally been fine, but they did not, and the publishers had every right to sue.

        The publishes also waited until June to file suit: well-after most places had been re-opened for weeks.

        IA does important work, but they absolutely broke the law here, and since they did it by intentionally removing the systems designed to ensure legitimate archival status and fair-use of copywritten works, they have pretty much zero defense. It wasn’t a mistake or an oversight. And after reopening they kept doing it for weeks until they were sued and were able to magically restore the legal system the same day the lawsuit was filed.

        • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          25 days ago

          You’re using the publisher’s arguments in your comment. If anybody’s interested, here’s the IA’s counter-argument. It boils down to the fact publishers are challenging practices that used to be considered fair use… just because they can.

          This decision has wide-reaching implications that will affect all libraries, not just the IA.

          Ultimately we’ll just have to see what the appeal decision will be.

          • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            24 days ago

            Their counter-argument isn’t a legal argument. They’re saying they did it because they think the publishers aren’t being fair.

            And they’re talking mostly about format-conversion, which isn’t the problem here.

            You can absolutely make format conversions to digital for archival purposes. What you cannot do is them make a bunch of copies and give them away for free simultaneous use. That is not fair use. That’s 100% piracy.

            The CDL was built specifically to ensure that only one digital copy was on loan for each owned copy of the material because the IA absolutely knew that was the law.

          • Ferk@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            25 days ago

            In that counter argument they are essentially admitting that 99% of their content was distributed without the copyright holder’s consent.

            In the CDL lawsuit, they have admitted that of the millions of books we have digitized, they themselves have only made about 33,000 available to libraries; only about 1% of what we have done, and only under restrictive and expensive license agreements. This is, they claim, the essence of their copyright rights: the ability to restrict access to information as they see fit, to further their theoretical economic interests, without regard to libraries traditional functions and the greater public good.

            Was it fair use in the past to redistribute reprints/format-conversions of works without the copyright holders consent?

            I agree that copyright law sucks… but that’s why it needs to change so it actually serves “the greater public good”. The judiciary system is not the right place to advocate for that (they don’t make the law, just interpret it), so I don’t really think there’s much hope in them winning this. Sadly.

    • CrabAndBroom@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      25 days ago

      Assuming they don’t win, is there any contingency in place to preserve all their data? I don’t know how exactly because I assume there’s an absolute fuckton of it, but it would be such a shame if all of that was lost forever.

      I’d love to see it become like the Pirate Bay, where they squish one and ten more pop up to replace it, but I don’t know if that’s even possible.

      • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        24 days ago

        That worked for pirate bay because they were storing a miniscule amount of actual data. Torrents are really small. The actual data is stored in the peer to peer network. The torrents are just tracking where in the p2p stuff is.

        IA isn’t like that. They probably store exabytes of data.

          • Cracks_InTheWalls@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            24 days ago

            Lol, fair. I’m still not well versed in inter-service ActivityPub stuff. I don’t know if you’ll see this or see any of the parent comments here on Lemmy.

            Contingency plans if IA loses the appeal about the library stuff, or in general has something happen that puts IA’s collections at risk of being lost. Any thoughts on the matter? Also cool if it’s not something you want to talk about, I know you don’t speak for the whole org.

            How do we archive the archive?

    • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      25 days ago

      Yeah, pretty much everyone who understands copyright agreed that this was the dumbest idea imaginable. But IA stupidly proceeded anyways, and now they’re finding out that the long studded dildo of justice rarely arrives lubed.

      I love IA. I use it all the time. But this was just a blatantly stupid move. No amount of crying about it is going to change the fact that they seriously fucked up and angered the most well-established copyright holders in the world.

  • onlinepersona@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    25 days ago

    They made a really dumb move and now have to pay for it. I understand their importance but it doesn’t seem like they do - or they are naive enough to believe corpos have good will.

    They broke law in such a dumb way, and it’s a pity they put their entire project in jeopardy. My only thought while deciding to donate is “what will prevent them from doing something this dumb again?”

    Anti Commercial-AI license

  • Scolding0513@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    25 days ago

    corporations attack anything that might challenge their ability to make a quick buck: everyone and everything else be damned. sadly the only way to overcome this kind of monster is a decentralized network of information hoarders. appealing lawsuits is just a bandaid.

    the internet archive needs to reorganize. as long as it makes itself into a target as a centralized org, it will also get shot at by soulless corporate husks. im envisioning moving everything onto ipfs, that way anyone can help host as much or little as they like.

    • FaceDeer@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      25 days ago

      They don’t need to do anything so drastic. They just need to stop doing things that blatantly provoke legal attacks like this. Their “Emergency Covid Library” was a foolish stunt that is endangering their primary objective of information preservation, they wouldn’t have been sued if they’d just kept on carrying on as they were before.

      • Scolding0513@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        25 days ago

        the corporations dont care. why should the archive be under the pressure of the soulless suits at all? any “stunts” are just excuses for doing what they will do anyway: pick on anyone who doesnt bow to their petty whims.

        no, saying that this is the archive’s fault is so gross, and just says that you accept their bullying and blackmail as somehow moral

        archive should decentralize, that’s the only real solution imo

        • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          25 days ago

          Archive has been around for well over a decade with no issues outside of sporadic DMCA claims against user uploaded content. For many many years they have been left alone, despite hosting a shit ton of copyrighted material.

          Occasional legal battles that they’ve handled with no problems with the help of the EFF. This is the first “existential threat” to them in quite a long time.

          This is absolutely because they pulled the emergency library stunt, and they were loud as hell about it. They literally broke the law and shouted about it.

          Libraries are allowed to scan/digitize books they own physically. They are only allowed to lend out as many as they physically own though. Archive knew this and allowed infinite “lend outs”. They even openly acknowledged that this was against the law in their announcement post when they did this.

          I can absolutely say this is their own damn fault while disagreeing with the law they broke. There, I just did.

          • A1kmm@lemmy.amxl.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            25 days ago

            This is absolutely because they pulled the emergency library stunt, and they were loud as hell about it. They literally broke the law and shouted about it.

            I think that you are right as to why the publishers picked them specifically to go after in the first place. I don’t think they should have done the “emergency library”.

            That said, the publishers arguments show they have an anti-library agenda that goes beyond just the emergency library.

            Libraries are allowed to scan/digitize books they own physically. They are only allowed to lend out as many as they physically own though. Archive knew this and allowed infinite “lend outs”. They even openly acknowledged that this was against the law in their announcement post when they did this.

            The trouble is that the publishers are not just going after them for infinite lend-outs. The publishers are arguing that they shouldn’t be allowed to lend out any digital copies of a book they’ve scanned from a physical copy, even if they lock away the corresponding numbers of physical copies.

            Worse, they got a court to agree with them on that, which is where the appeal comes in.

            The publishers want it to be that physical copies can only be lent out as physical copies, and for digital copies the libraries have to purchase a subscription for a set number of library patrons and concurrent borrows, specifically for digital lending, and with a finite life. This is all about growing publisher revenue. The publishers are not stopping at saying the number of digital copies lent must be less than or equal to the number of physical copies, and are going after archive.org for their entire digital library programme.

            • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              25 days ago

              They need to decentralize because it was always only a matter of time before they pissed off the wrong capitalist sociopath or piss baby politician.

      • stoy@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        25 days ago

        Yeah, as soon as I read about that I realized that they fucked up.

        It was increadibly irresponsible by them at their current legal status.