Its time to save things you need to save from the internet achieve.....
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (44)
sorted by:
https://nitter.poast.org/PublishersWkly/status/1831357570365497379
Publisher's Weekly article
Towards the bottom of the article, there are signs that archive dot org might lose a significant amount of money soon.
Oh shoot. I found a bunch of fantastic books I probably couldn't access anywhere else on there. I can imagine that there's gonna be a bunch of things on that site vanishing forever if this gets serious.
I don't expect massive websites to go down with ease every day, but I might need to start saving things in any way possible at the first chance that I get.
the best archive is a physical copy.
Which is why we have over 4k books in our personal library.
I only have a hundred or so. Well done. I theorized that after all or most paper books are gone and everything is digital, the EMPs would hit and they would be in possession of the books and knowledge. Except for us wildcards
We didnt start with 4k books. My wife and I are 40. If you buy 10 books a month for a decade you'll end up with a respectable 1200 books in your personal library.
I've been pretty selective about the books I purchased. I have a great deal of additional books in digital format
Modern day book burning.
It's all so tiresome...
Their ultimate goal is to gatekeep and paywall the exchange of ideas and information. If you want to see how that works today, look at how much control is placed upon and excessively expensive peer reviewed journals are.
good lad
They scanned books then "lent" out the scan.
What genius lawyer thought making a copy, then making any number of other copies wouldn't violate copyright?
Must have been a Googler that forgot only #1 lobbyist megacorps are allowed to do that.
Scanning and distributing copies was a stupid idea. Anyone could have told them it would be trouble.
There's no way of distributing a digital copy legally unless direct from the publisher or with their express consent. And the only people they're going to give that to are companies that riddle it with DRM.
Ultimately this ruling could also affect physical media and physical libraries. One of the arguments is that libraries allow individuals to consume content without royalties being paid as would be if that individual purchased a copy. Where we are going to get into difficulty is where a work is out of print and there is no legal way to purchase it first hand (they want second hand sales of media criminalised too for the same reason as the lending of media, no royalty payment).
I remember video game companies went in heavy regarding loaning of games to the point they boycotted stores such as Blockbuster Video or if they couldn't do it, they did like The Lion King did on 16-bit systems, made the second level so hard it dissuaded people from loaning and nudged them to purchase the game.
Every media has a warning that loaning is prohibited. They want everyone to purchase an individual copy for themselves.
If you want an idea of where things will go, see the control and prices for peer reviewed papers. The publishers want to gatekeep and paywall the exchange of ideas and information.
IA's deleting it's lending library, That's all that's gone the rest of the site is fine thankfully.
But calm heads don't get CLICKS!
Think of the CLICKS, bro!
Exactly what I thought. It's gonna be fine...for now.
In the US perhaps, there are plenty of places still left where this jurisdiction doesn't apply.
Let's make sure it stays that way!
If you're going run this kind of unsanctioned online library, the bare minimum requirement is that you don't lend out more copies than you own. You can't copy one book and lend it out to two people at the same time, and you can't lend out the copy without holding the original in escrow. I have seen it said that Internet Archive wasn't doing this, or else they could reasonably argue they were acting in line with existing case law (that copying media you own for backup purposes is permitted) and the spirit of the law.
Their issue is with the loaning of media. They don't make a royalty from every loan and they want every individual to purchase that media outright. They actively put a warning on every media that loaning is prohibited. That includes physical libraries too and they're now under threat too.
EDIT: since the time of posting, a source has been posted. thank you FrozenInFear!
stop being lazy. I've said this so much that I might as well turn it into a copypasta.
screenshots are easily photoshopped and easily faked. they are the tool of well poisoners and fake news spreaders. the last thing you want is to fall for a fake screenshot. it takes zero effort to copy and paste a link. if you prefer to post the image, paste the link in the comments then. of course, the best method is to archive and post the archive.
screenshot posters are lazy fags
Archives are easily taken down (the thing that this whole post is about), at least screenshots are hosted local to .win. Furthermore, X doesn't show shit if you don't have a account, so archives and direct links are useless, and Nitter doesn't exist on days ending in "y".
Images hosted on .win aren't guaranteed to stick around, and twitter threads can be archived pretty well with ghostarchive.
I remember the days when screenshots being shared around had an unspoken and unenforced rule to also include an archive URL at the same time....... Just edited in with paint or something. Real easy to do.
A person will vehemently reject an ugly truth shown to them...
...but vigorously embrace an ugly truth personally uncovered.
Look it up yourself. Proven redpill method.
You are a bot.
Keep doing what you're doing. Convince no one.
we've been through this, this take is fucking retarded
Is it?
Where has your method gotten us?
While you embrace braggadocio about how righteous and pure your methods are, the world continues to get worse and worse.
We're preaching to the fucking choir and not GETTING ANYTHING DONE.
MAYBE if we made them look it up their own fucking SELVES, we could change some damn minds!
Oh well. Not like you can stop what's coming anyway.
You'll see soon.
I refer you to all of the points I made in our previous thread, as you keep repeating the points you made then
I can't tell if he's autistic or retarded, but I'm leaning towards the latter.
This is one of the most retarded takes I've ever seen. Maybe you're not smart enough to understand, but a screenshot isn't indicative of anything. Context can be manipulated, or outright fabricated, before a screenshot is taken. A direct link, or an archive, cannot.
Yeah checks out.
Do you actually believe that editing the HTML will cause that to be archived?...
The archiving service doesn't archive whatever edited HTML is currently loaded in your browser. It uses a web crawler to visit the URL and gets a fresh copy of the HTML from the source.
You deserve every misfortune that befalls you.
You acting like an obnoxious, mentally defunct faggot screams otherwise.
People who refuse to archive are outsiders and should be gatekept.
I agree, and I've even asked for it to be mandatory for this board. Screenshots by themselves should not be permitted.