Yea imo, they’ve done too far in their scope. You can’t just put up copyrighted works that are still readily for sale unrestricted like that. The whole library model only makes sense based on scarcity.
I would argue broadening of the scope only increases legitimacy—if the goal is to build an archive of literally everything, any objection to an individual piece of content is of diminishing validity.
And FWIW, I think an archive of everything is an incredibly valuable endeavour we should protect. We’ve already lost far too much media.
Be realistic. If every movie ever produced were legally available on IA, no one would ever buy a movie again. If no one ever buys a movie again, the industry would crumble overnight and there would no longer be new movies. Libraries exist in the physical space under much stricter limitations. They simply can’t stock a million copies of the same thing. The logistics limit them. Going digital is a paradigm shift that causes the entire model to be questioned, especially if these pieces of media aren’t being paid for.
Straight up piracy is simpler than getting all your content from archive.org if it was there anyway (e.g. the direct download speeds are very limited, there’s no real discoverability). People still pay for movies and streaming services, so if the content being available for free was going to kill the industry, it would have already happened.
In fact we’ve repeatedly seen over and over again, people just pay for content if the service is actually better than piracy. Convenience is king, and archive.org is not optimised for convenient content consumption à la netflix, and as far as I can tell changing that is not a goal of theirs.
Are we talking about the merits of the Internet Archive as a library or whether or not piracy matters? If you conflate the two, then IA is piracy and they will lose.
Ah sorry, I may have misunderstood you, I thought you were suggesting if the content was on IA people would pirate the content from there and destroy the film industry.
I pointed out that the focus is archival and not making it easy to pirate stuff, and that there already exists easier ways to do that. Therefore it wouldn’t change anything that’s not happening already except preserving human culture (which is a particularly valuable endeavour in my opinion)
Another commentator mentioned allowing uploading but not downloading might be the solution. If the work became orphaned or anything it could be opened up for download.
It’s because you’re not using that legally bought copy. You’re creating a new copy from that one.
I love the internet archive, especially when dealing with older consoles and pc’s but I see why there’s a problem. I think copyrighted works should probably still be uploaded but maybe not downloadable until there’s no other way. That way we can upload for posterity without it being linked to piracy. But also that’s an unrealistic moderation nightmare to deal with
You can copy blu-rays you got from your library. You can scan a book. If the time spend doing so, is your only argument, that’s pretty weak. No offense, that’s just what it is.
Yea imo, they’ve done too far in their scope. You can’t just put up copyrighted works that are still readily for sale unrestricted like that. The whole library model only makes sense based on scarcity.
I would argue broadening of the scope only increases legitimacy—if the goal is to build an archive of literally everything, any objection to an individual piece of content is of diminishing validity.
And FWIW, I think an archive of everything is an incredibly valuable endeavour we should protect. We’ve already lost far too much media.
Be realistic. If every movie ever produced were legally available on IA, no one would ever buy a movie again. If no one ever buys a movie again, the industry would crumble overnight and there would no longer be new movies. Libraries exist in the physical space under much stricter limitations. They simply can’t stock a million copies of the same thing. The logistics limit them. Going digital is a paradigm shift that causes the entire model to be questioned, especially if these pieces of media aren’t being paid for.
Straight up piracy is simpler than getting all your content from archive.org if it was there anyway (e.g. the direct download speeds are very limited, there’s no real discoverability). People still pay for movies and streaming services, so if the content being available for free was going to kill the industry, it would have already happened.
In fact we’ve repeatedly seen over and over again, people just pay for content if the service is actually better than piracy. Convenience is king, and archive.org is not optimised for convenient content consumption à la netflix, and as far as I can tell changing that is not a goal of theirs.
Are we talking about the merits of the Internet Archive as a library or whether or not piracy matters? If you conflate the two, then IA is piracy and they will lose.
Ah sorry, I may have misunderstood you, I thought you were suggesting if the content was on IA people would pirate the content from there and destroy the film industry.
I pointed out that the focus is archival and not making it easy to pirate stuff, and that there already exists easier ways to do that. Therefore it wouldn’t change anything that’s not happening already except preserving human culture (which is a particularly valuable endeavour in my opinion)
Another commentator mentioned allowing uploading but not downloading might be the solution. If the work became orphaned or anything it could be opened up for download.
Why not? That’s exactly what physical libraries do. Why should it be any different for a library that so happens to be on the internet?
It’s because you’re not using that legally bought copy. You’re creating a new copy from that one.
I love the internet archive, especially when dealing with older consoles and pc’s but I see why there’s a problem. I think copyrighted works should probably still be uploaded but maybe not downloadable until there’s no other way. That way we can upload for posterity without it being linked to piracy. But also that’s an unrealistic moderation nightmare to deal with
You can copy blu-rays you got from your library. You can scan a book. If the time spend doing so, is your only argument, that’s pretty weak. No offense, that’s just what it is.
The issue is that if you do personal copies you’re not usually putting them out there for the whole world to see publicly.
With some exceptions, everyone can visit every library everywhere on earth. It’s not different than a big website, aside of some inconsistencies.
Libraries aren’t making endless copies of things that people can take and not give back though
That’s a good idea.