this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2024
280 points (94.9% liked)

Technology

71885 readers
4330 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

IA didn't get sued for archiving. They got sued for mass redistribution.

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today -4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Pretty sure that's a basic function of a publicly operated archive, but for sure there was a lot of nuance.

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That's the point, though. The law is very clear that mass distributing wholesale copyrighted works isn't fair use. Digitizing it was the part justified by fair use "archival". Distribution isn't.

You have to start over and throw out the old laws. Right now there's no framework to own a file at all (outside of actually holding the copyright). It's always a license.

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today -4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Throwing them out and restarting is a lot harder than restarting without throwing them out.

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The core concept of ownership and copying needs to change if you want anything resembling what IA did to be protected. Because the underlying premise behind copyright legislation that that any unauthorized copy needs a specific exception to be legal, and it's impossible to use digital files without numerous copies.

That's starting from scratch.

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today -4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Okay but you can literally just overwrite laws without making a period inbetween where anything and everything is allowed. That's fucking stupid.

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Where did anyone say anything that resembles "make a free for all in between" in any way?

The core concepts of current laws are completely incompatible with any form of actual ownership in a digital world. You need to write new laws that start from the ground up with concepts that work.

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today -3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You have to start over and throw out the old laws.

You, then.

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You should work on your reading comprehension.

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today -3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

You should work on your shit ideology and core values, or if you meant something other than what you explicitly said then you should work on your English writing capability.

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Your inability to read a straightforward sentence is not my issue.

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today -3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

You have to start over and throw out the old laws.