Bernie and Cybershell cope and seethe about the Internet Archive lawsuit (Recorded 03/25/2023) HOSTS bernievidz - / bernievidz cybershell - / cybershell13
There's the entire run of Archie Sonic including specials and spin offs, there's the whole series of Sonic The Comic which includes all the other Sega comics made in the UK that weren't Sonic, Sprite comics like 8 Bit Theater and Mega Man Sprite Comic...
May I remind the public that the EU has done multiple studies on the effect of piracy on direct sales and found that there is no significant loss of income for companies involved.
Perceiving "money that you could have made" as a loss is complete logical fallacy bullshit anyway. 99% of pirates would not buy the shit they pirate if they couldn't pirate it.
Reminds me of the whole “Z-Library incident”, but that one was waaaay more extreme (straight up piracy). There’s still college textbooks from z-library circulating online for broke college students to download, except they keep getting stricken down by the FBI. What urks me is that most college textbook publishers just re-publish the same book and re-arrange the contents. Then they’re like “give me $250 for this book you will use one quarter”, and then the teachers don’t even use those required books. Most teachers and students I bump into have told me to “just google the pdf.” I want to “pay the worker his wages” but I still hate the state of things. Also, the internet archive is a Godsend for hundreds of different things. E.g., you can only find a few promotional N64 mario renders with the wayback machine.
The Internet Archive is genuinely one of if not the most important websites ever. Think about the books that aren't being printed anymore. Think about books that aren't available in certain regions of the world. Think of the books that only have limited prints. I've looked at art books and video game guide books on there because guess what, they physically are not available to buy officially any more. And here's the thing, if it's not on the Internet Archive, people will just pirate it. I had to pirate academic journals to cite for a college assignment I did on digital piracy and the accessibility of knowledge and information. IA is also great simply just for the Wayback Machine. I have a video idea I've been working on and I genuinely COULD NOT make the video without the Wayback Machine. I support the Internet Archive entirely, and anyone against it is either ignorant or downright stupid.
This is not just a bonus episode, this is an important enough issue to be a full ass episode. It's a goddamn crime that the Internet Archive is at any risk at all
I for one stopped to think, isn't it kinda shitty that so many nonprofit websites are run entirely on US servers? Because that affects everyone in the world. Like actually, I'm from Brasil, and the price for a lot of niche books is outrageous. And as someone that stives to be an animator in a country that has 3 universities with an animation course, the internet archive helped me so much with anatomy and drawing books, whereas the book that I read costs a whopping R$ 300 on amazon. This lawsuit not only is elitist, it comes out as outright americocentric and kinda racist, they are blocking knowledge not only from the most successful country in the world, they are blocking knowledge in the poorest countries in the world. Companies are actively trying to make the world an even more unequal place to live, with one of the things that came to break a small part of that unequality being the internet, the blocking of certain aspects of it actually deprive some people of the chances of not living in misery.
Prolly the fifth person to mention this but, a few minutes ago the San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a Resolution in Support of Digital Rights For Libraries, which was passed by Connie Chan whose district includes IA. It makes San Francisco the first municipality to codify the importance of digital libraries and controlled digital lending in a resolution. It's not a *total* win and to my understanding doesn't erase the undercurrents of what you discuss in the episode. But it's a huge first step and a little light in the darkness that hopefully will be signs of a good future for the archive. You can read more on the IA blog. Great vid =)
I was a public librarian for about 8 years. Im not surprised by the outcome of the lawsuit, but i am beyond disappointed that it went that way. Publishers are a menace to freedom of information, all decent librarians have beef with publishers because protecting freedom of information/intellectual freedom is literally one of the core principles of librarianship. The United Nations actually had to create a treaty - called the Marrakesh VIP Treaty - to get around how dreadful publishers are about copyright. The treaty allows libraries to make accessible copies of books for print disabled patrons, i.e. if you are blind and want to read a book but your library doesnt have an audio ot braille copy, you can request your library convert said book to your preferred accessible format (this also applies to all disabilities that impact a person's ability to read print books). Little is likely to change as a result of this for traditional libraries because they have already been held to these standards. It's a terrible outcome, but it was always the only possible outcome in a world where the UN had to create an international treaty to protect traditional libraries from breaking copyright law so that they could digitise or reproduce books to make them accessible for disabled people, including those who are completely unable to read print because they're literally blind. In a fair world those gaps in publishing accessibility would not exist, however publishers only produce what they think will sell the most copies, which is why not everything gets an audiobook (which is still not an accessible option for everyone because Deaf people and people with other hearing related disabilities exist and can also be blind or have a print disability, but audio for all books is literally the absolute bare minimum they could do to include the most print disabled people). I could go on about this forever from an infinite amount of other angles other than just Marrakesh and accessibility, but F publishers, all my homies hate publishers. Also in case IA Library goes down, you local library almost certainly has a digital library too - it just isnt as extensive, but digital library books are still available.
Imma be real, this podcast has lasted 4 more episodes than I thought it would considering Cybershell's track record of disappearing. But I'm always happy to get a Netlore episode so thanks Netlore your content really is so niche and well researched I'm all for it.
I don't know why people even subscribe if he never keeps up with any of his channels. I like his content, but imma die of old age before he makes it to 100 videos.
Corporations are digging their nails more and more into peoples lives and there is nothing we can reasonably do to stop them. Corporate greed has gotten to the point where nothing can escape it.
I just did a quick search and found out my book is on the Internet Archive with 144 views. While that could have been sales in all honesty I don't care too much and I'm happy to just know people are reading it in anyway they can!
There's a simple two-part question that definitively disproves the idea that piracy is just for getting free stuff. Find anyone who's pirates things before and ask them two questions: 1. Have you ever pirated something that you already owned? If "yes," clearly, there are things that piracy offers besides just the opportunity for theft, and if retailers understood this, they could try to offer those benefits themselves. 2. Have you ever pirated something and then purchased it? If "yes," clearly, pirates aren't just trying to save money. They spent money on something they already owned, and if retailers understood why, they could try to find a way to make the piracy step unnecessary. I've asked these questions to tons of people, and every single person has answered yes to both.
In general the thing I've noticed the most with piracy is a majority of pirates would sooner not purchase the product at all, then buy it legitimately if it was the only option to them, meaning that a lot of these supposed lost sales weren't even going to happen in the first place.
Update for anyone seeing this recently: A second circuit court of appeals heard their case mid summer 2024, and the discussion (originally scheduled for 20 minutes) went on to last over 90 minutes. The court took both arguments very seriously. In the end, they decided that they could not make a decision at the bench, and opted to make a legal decision in time. That answer could come late fall or as late as next year, according to the judges. If you want to know more, I encourage you to look it up,
And yet when I say that the whole root of the problem is that you have to _pay_ in order to be able to live at all people call me socialist as if it's a bad thing
Man, I discovered many old and niche book and media on the IA. Very disappointing that it lost the lawsuit tbh, I hope the Internet won't see mayor repercussions from this.
"Anyone who pirates something and loves it will spend money on it" is the other side of the "Every pirated copy is a lost sale" coin. They're both equally ridiculous assumptions.
Yup. I've always done that, but I'm in the minority on that, and am fully aware of that. Peope just use that argument because they don't like the negative connotation associated with it. If you're gonna do it, be honest accept what comes with it, which includes misinformation and ignorant comments from those that vilify it. The conversation is a tiresome one because no one gets to the bottom line.
That's a fair point, but I think it's pretty obvious which of those is closer to the truth. Especially when you consider the value brought by an expanded audience, and that, in the *vast* majority of cases, people who pirate the work wouldn't have bought a copy anyway, for whatever reason. Twisting people's arms doesn't result in more sales or more money, and the way that most successful digitalized companies work, including the one we're on right now, are testaments to that. And, to be clear, I'm not saying that everyone, everywhere, all the time should pirate everything they weren't going to buy, or that everyone who makes anything should be okay with that, just that there's almost always more to be gained by trying to help people engage with what you're making than making is difficult. Accessible pricing, cycling paid content into free content, etc. People would feel less of a need to pirate, because people don't generally do it for fun, they do it because they feel pushed to. They're almost certainly wrong, and I'm especially not a fan of pirating content by small(er) creators, but I think it's obvious to everyone that piracy doesn't cause that much lost revenue (except for in secondary markets I suppose, but even then).
@@SaberToothPortilla I've worked in the industry and I can confirm all of what you've said. In fact, the "anti-piracy" campaign is actually more of a way of holding on to current whales that you have hooked. It strengthens brand loyalty by making them feel like they're taking the "right" stance. This is why you see so few piracy cases in court, because they don't care. It's all posturing for their current consumer base and is done in every industry, because the "us vs them" mentality makes millions. You can see the success in how defensive most consumers are about the subject, especially due to the fact that their true hangup is not neccesarily the pirating, but the subconcious buyers remorse. They cope by spending even more in order to feel "better". People would be quite surprised about how much psychology goes into business.
"We think there is a fundamental misconception about piracy. Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem. For example, if a pirate offers a product anywhere in the world, 24/7, purchasable from the convenience of your personal computer, and the legal provider says the product is region-locked, will come to your country three months after the U.S. release and can only be purchased at a brick and mortar store, then the pirate's service is more valuable." - *Gabe Newell*
not really, because people who pirate either will never be able to pay for what they took, or they get the means to do so later and actually do so it may be impossible to wonder why even do that when you were able to get that thing for free, but it's because having a paid working copy is a lot easier than having a likely busted and not fully functional pirated copy especially when games get updates and dlc, you're going to have to go through hoops to get the same things if you don't already have them
It's a shame that a digital library in San Francisco can be ganged up on by publishers owned by a French group, a German conglomerate, and a corporation with majority shares held by the Murdock family. I love international free trade and multinational corporations. They make the things and we give money for them.
Further points: is lending a book to a friend stealing? is reading the book to a group of friends stealing? Are schools stealing when they tell kids to share a textbook? Or when they photocopy sections of books they don't have 200+ copies of for the students?
super happy y’all covered this!!! so many people don’t understand just how important having books, and raw information available to the public is. I’m currently in community college, and I’ve been using the internet archive because my Japanese language textbook is on there that I can borrow for free!! if it wasn’t for the internet archive I would’ve had to pay over $300 for a book that we don’t use in class at all and only need 1/4 of the time for homework, but is essentially when we do need it. I remembered the day I went to get the books I needed and ended up crying at the register because I couldn’t afford that and my workbook and had to make the decision to put it away and try to find cheaper options online. There were none, except for the internet archive.
Oh hell yeah man, I love publishers and companies going to extreme levels to squeeze every potential sell they can get, in fact, I hope they sue every library in the world. Sigh... The Internet archive is incredible, so this case makes me so mad. But I especially hate the fact that there's nothing really we can do about it. We just have to sit here and wait to see how it resolves, tho it's not looking good.
As much as I believe in the idea of freedom of information, blocking all sorts of advertisements from my browser while adding paywall bypassers, and even despising Nintendo to the point where I do not want to spend a single cent on any of their products, I think the Internet Archive kinda walked into this one. I understand that the pandemic leading to many libraries being closed was the main motivation behind the Internet Archive opening the National Emergency Library. But in my opinion, the moment they stopped with the restrictions with the number of copies allowed for borrowing was the moment they made themselves a target, since they basically started redistributing without the prior permission of the publishers. There is no way in hell with the current legal landscape would this possibly be defensible. The opt-out option does not help either since publishers could argue that there may still have been "damages" between the time this started and the publishers chose to opt out. The Internet Archive should have at least disclosed or discussed to the publishers that they were about to do the emergency before doing it to prevent themselves from getting into trouble. I can't think of a way the Internet Archive could win this legally. I want to make it clear that in no way I am defending the publishers' actions, nor am I advocating for publishers to have even more control over works. I love the Internet Archive but I think they could've done better here. Regardless, this was a good episode that taught me details about this legal battle I haven't heard of before. Keep 'em coming.
rlly great video. glad to see some1 talk abt how stupid chuck wendig being thrust into being the face of the lawsuit is and how it just shifts blame from corporations. also really fucking funny how you can physically feel cybershell biting his tongue. good stuff
Corporations are awful. Back in 1999, the drug companies managed to get the U.S. government to lower the point at which people are labeled as "overweight" by ten pounds, making people "overweight" over night. Plus the hold they have over greedy doctors just ruins any chance at people being healthy. My friends are constantly getting told that they're overweight when they really aren't. I took one to the doctor and I heard the nurse scream out "WOW YOU'RE FAT!" cuz he was ONE pound "overweight". Really? He'd lose like 10 pounds if he took off his boots, clothes, wallet, keys, and watch. Plus they made him drink a gallon of water before he came in. That's almost another ten pounds. Plus he's a runner and has massively muscular legs. Probably 20 pounds more than most people. So he's like 40 pounds away from being "overweight", and 50 away from being actually overweight. But he immediately started going on a diet, falling into the hands of drug companies and their doctory pawns. We already can't be healthy; now we get to be stupid too...
This just motivates me to keep pirating, and to maybe even step it up a notch (due to hate towards publishers, I don't hold a greievence with paying authors if they sold directly)
I gotta say, it seems like the way Internet Archive does things seems primarily only threatening to the types of big businesses who rely on the requirement for people to pay before they actually see what they're getting. If people only pay for things they actually like, there's suddenly a pressure to make something actually good instead of just something marketable
This whole situation about the book borrowing system that the Internet Archive had, and it reminds me of the whole lawsuit between Nintendo and Console Classix. Where you could borrow roms that were owned physically by the host of the service, and that rom would only be available to other users only when the current user would end their current session using that rom. But unfortunately, corporations keep nickeling and diming every method of unofficial distribution. (aside from scalping, they all seem to be fiiiiiiiiine with people reselling stuff for a gigantic cut that will never be seen by the original corporation in the first place) And to me, the most annoying part isn't the corporations "excercising their right" to gain revenue, it's the incessant bootlickers that would die on a hill defending a corporation that would never acknowledge them. Like, I don't go on twitter often (thank god), but I bet with complete certainty that there are some people there that are against the Internet Archive as a whole, and their whole argument against it is: "Corporations need munny or they will shrivel up and die, despite the fact they probably already have a fortune bigger than whatever I'll spend in my entire life. Also, if you can't afford to access such a thing (Books, movies, games, etc), then you don't deserve to have access to it, because you're poor lol"
Coming back to this after the Neil Gaiman allegations is truly something. At one time, he was the poster boy & cheerleader for this lawsuit and now? He’s shown himself to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing wearing the mask of a Progressive his whole career to make SA that much easier. In a way, he’s proven that Horseshoe Theory is a thing regardless of how much the ultra-communists don’t want to believe it 🤷🏽♂️ But anyways, the Internet Archive is at least still in good standing and I’ve been able to find more shows & books on there than ever!
They didn’t really touch on it too much, but losing section 230 would effect literally any post you make, no matter if it involves a copy righted material or not. It would be Twitter getting the slander lawsuit for your tweet about how “mellow yellow makes your dick small”. It wouldn’t even come down to “getting more mods” because before section 230 offended corporations argued that websites that did moderate their users were essentially backing everything they said by keep the posts up. It may very well be the most important law concerning how the internet we know is run.
i only really started using internet archive last year when i started taking an interest in old strategy guides. shortly after i caught wind of this lawsuit happening. unlucky.
online sales are often direct to the creator meaning that they make more money from the sale because they wont have to sell their book through a distributor who will want a significant margin of the profit.
@13:35-.-This point sounds like something someone would say when they want to give an opinion, but they haven't actually done any research, and so they just assume some things are true.
I feel better about downloading all of Animorphs because I read all the reprints of the first 6 volumes so far and they actually changed some parts of it due to outdated references. I only know of these references because I read them as a kid and held onto them, but those books are wearing out. I want to be able to pass this stuff onto my nephew and I can't do that or show him how cool the original books are if I couldn't download all those books. The only thing that's missing in those PDF files are the flipbook morph animations at the bottom corner of all the pages. If there's an archived version of those, I will pay for it! SERIOUSLY.
Internet Archive losing was inevitable, lost respect for them when they started redacting stories about people they know. Hopefully they appeal and win
I was looking for this comment. The service is extremely important, but I feel like it'd be destroyed from the inside eventually if not for outside forces
There's an entire archive of Flash stuff too like Homestar Runner and Strong Bad Emails, old Newgrounds stuff, ect. This is an important site and should be free for everyone!
The reprints of Animorphs reminds me of the reprints of Archie Sonic where it cut out credit to people who worked on the comics as well as censoring the Image crossover.
this sounds a lot like class warfare. "the term class conflict identifies the political tension and economic antagonism that exist among the social classes in a society, because of socio-economic competition for resources among the social classes, between the rich and the poor" - Wikipedia
The media that is owned by large corporations wants you to believe that most of the issues in the world is because of issues of racism, sexism, other-isms, while in reality it's a class issue.
Kill it, they are selective, I hate it! Free stuff won't help if you only keep the "good". If we want to learn, there has to be rubbish that can be recycled if needed. I like information to get worthless in the sea of copies. DMCA and Privacy be dammed! Knowledge seems so novel, because most stay willingly naive. Every information should be free, especially online history. And I don't care of the negative connotation: "That book containing your nudes is now free content."
Copyright laws should not be applied to assets that are not re-sellable and incredibly easy to reproduce with virtually no cost. Now I am going to be hated for this but a lot of the reasons why I am a proponent of digital libraries, legal or illegal, is the same reason I am not for the expansion of copyright in the context of training images for AI-generated image algorithms. It's frustrating how many people are looking towards these outdated laws as their savior when in many cases these laws have hurt creators more than they did help. If anything this is an information privacy issue, not a copyright issue. Copyright laws are no longer your friends.
I tend to agree, though what exactly "not-resellable" means is a bit vague. Frankly I don't think copyright as it stands is *that* bad, the period of protection should just be much shorter. That said, I do think there should be certain protections that extend probably indefinitely. Also, as far as the AI training, personally I think people should be allowed to withold from their work being used in training sets. I get that, prima facie, it isn't substantively different from someone just seeing your work (which, if the web crawler found it, The artist is probably okay with people seeing it), but I think the element of extent is actually important. AI (generally) make use of that training data in much more direct ways, and obviously much more quickly and much more easily, to the point where it's closer to (extremely sophisticated) collaging than what a person would do with the same information. In the same way I tend to believe that people should be able to bar the use of their content towards ends that they don't believe in (at *least* while they're alive), I think the same should extend to the incorporation of works in AI. Especially considering the massively disproportionate capital distribution (often, but not always) involved in that process.
@@SaberToothPortilla >I tend to agree, though what exactly "not-resellable" means is a bit vague. Something that is not-resellable is a service , unlike a good. You can't re-sell someone's service like a massage, to another person, it's just physically impossible. Likewise, digital art is virtually unsellable on the basis that it is not tied to a physical asset, and replication of it is incredibly easy. In a way, digital assets behaves the same way as services, even though it is more tangible. >Also, as far as the AI training, personally I think people should be allowed to withold from their work being used in training sets. In an ideal world, yes, but it will be completely impossible for this to be enforced, considering anyone can copy and paste this asset for no cost. I think it is a little weird how people have been mocking NFT's by copying and pasting them, and at the same time, there are people who wholeheartedly think it is reasonable to think you can regulate the copying and pasting of images on the topic of feeding it to a training set. I think both trying to regulate the act of replication is ridiculous, especially since such technology as stable diffusion is open source and available to the public. Even without an image scraper, the normal person can physically duplicate and store content long enough that they'd create a robust collection to feed into an algorithm. >AI (generally) make use of that training data in much more direct ways, and obviously much more quickly and much more easily, to the point where it's closer to (extremely sophisticated) collaging than what a person would do with the same information. I do not understand why people compare AI to collages, which are historically considered a form of transformative art, to argue why it isn't the same as other art. I think if you want to argue that AI is derivative, people need to avoid comparing it to another medium of art. I think it is an argument that actually weakens the point people try to make. >In the same way I tend to believe that people should be able to bar the use of their content towards ends that they don't believe in (at least while they're alive), I think the same should extend to the incorporation of works in AI. Especially considering the massively disproportionate capital distribution (often, but not always) involved in that process. On the topic of copyright, the element of "barring incorporations into things creators don't believe in" is not a basis for why copyright was made, to begin with. I think a lot of what people view as copyright abuse can be explained as "barring incorporations into things creators don't believe in", such as an example when Nintendo sends takedowns of modded content. Personally, I don't believe copyright exists so people can invoke it for that purpose, and it's a moot point because a lot of derivative content of the original work is considered transformative on the basis that it distances from the intended message or purpose of the original. I think it is incredibly petty to invoke copyright just to screw over others they disagree with. I'm fairly sure the only reason why people don't treat digital libraries the same way as AI generated content is that they have a perception that artists are largely exploited workers, which might be true, but I bet you in most cases the one's being actively hurt from people using being added onto training sets are massive companies like Disney, whose work will inevitably be used in the algorithm due to having so many valuable IP's. These companies are the ones that actively lose money from people feeding into the algorithm, and not necessarily privately practicing artists who release their work to the public. The entities capable of profiting from the assets are the companies that own every single frame of the film, and the artists who actually worked on them would never see a cent of that profit, ironically, because they don't have the copyright to the property. I think it's kinda fucked up if these massive corporations will inevitably use AI in their products by using their wealth of pre-existing assets, but at the same time, people who actually worked on those assets can be liable for breaching fair use if they feed in their own labor into the same technology. AI will impact the market, but this is not a problem that has to do with copyright, it is the same problem as Facebook taking information from its users to sell them. The issue comes with privacy rights, not copyright. People are not supporting artists by expanding the power of copyright which has been screwing over creators for years.
Eventally that entire site will have content taken down until its just nothing but public domain and freeware/abandonware, it makes me sick that laws in this country continue to skew towards money and greed and not human progress.
Yeah, not even all the way through yet, but you guys are spitting here. Look, I get it, people need to make their money and, prima facie, free access to a resource is a threat to that, but I think it's obvious to everyone that the extent of that threat is actually extremely low. I'm gonna keep it a buck, I used to be a lot more into piracy (of media anyway, I'll get to that in a second) than I am now, when I was broke and/or resources were not openly available for me to access. That's just anecdotal, but I really do think Gabe Newell hit the nail on the head when he said piracy was a distribution problem, bearing in mind that "exorbitant pricing" can also be a distribution problem. Speaking as an academic, who isn't in school anymore but still works in R&D, damn near every publisher of anything is trying so hard to fuck you it is insane. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who disagrees with this that is actually invested in the advancement of any field, including people who work for and/or publish with these publishers, including me. We all know it's fucked, but we have to grit our teeth and bear it because we don't have a choice, and if we want to recommend really good comprehensive resources, we have to tell people to shell out literally hundreds, sometimes thousands, of dollars to access it. Things that we need to do our work, educate people, maintain the body of information etc., and not even necessarily for commercial purposes. So yeah, fuck that. If they're going to demand being paid handsomely in perpetuity for a nonscarce resource that, frankly, didn't cost them that much to make anyway (relative to a lot of other things anyway), they don't get to complain when people try to subvert them. Every other industry, for good or for ill, has at least tried to make moves to make these feasibly accessible to the public either by it being free or very cheap when you actually look at what you're getting (think subscription services, which have their own issues, but they're at least asking for amounts that people can actually pay in exchange for access to large libraries) And the classic argument of "Well normies don't give a shit about this stuff, so we have to charge high amounts to make our money back off of a smaller audience" doesn't hold water. We all know that you've already broke well over even on the shit, it is not that high investment of an industry, and second... maybe you'd have a larger audience if you didn't make journal access cost someone's fucking rent and you... tried to actually sell your shit to a larger audience. I have literally no objection to people pirating knowledge. It shouldn't be behind a fucking paywall anyway, and I know people who have written textbooks who feel the same way. Hell, I definitely feel that way about publications that I've contributed to, and so does everyone else I know personally, but the publishers don't have the same priorities as us. And I could even live with it if they weren't constantly trying to undermine natural market forces in every single way possible, like rereleasing the same book 20 fucking times and charging full price every time, despite the fact that it's maybe 20% different at best. Enough is enough man, people shouldn't have their work be disrespected by basically hiding it from the public. Nobody wants that. But it's never good enough for them to just get paid, they've got to make all the money. They should feel lucky that Internet Archive (and other forms of digital libraries which are becoming more common, and that's great) aren't trying to give it to them as hard as the actual pirates are, because they deserve to lose any bussiness that they do. If people are trying to play ball and that still isn't good enough for them, they can get fucked for all I care. They *won't* , but even if they were, they wouldn't have my sympathy.
Also there no way if the was no digital library’s that anyone during the pandemic (where people where losing jobs left and right and had to save there money for what they really need )would be buying the book for themselves
Even if the internet archive wins the lawsuit, they will probably be put in a lot more limitations. maybe a book has to be published a certain amount of time before it can be put there, or different rules between fiction and non-fiction stuff.
There's videos on RUclips that got silenced completely because it had a few seconds of a popular song and the originals can be found on the archive. They aren't profiting from them. Nobody is profiting off of them! It's usually for shits n giggles.
Another thing about the reprints of Animorphs that sucks is they keep dropping the series after like volume 6 or 7. One reprint reached volume 8 and stopped dead. The original book series was 54 books not counting the tie in stories ect. That's annoying. Bad enough they mess with the books by taking stuff out, but they don't even have the common courtesy to reprint the whole run. I'm sure the graphic novels will do the same thing because they didn't plan past volume 6 AGAIN.
Legit I was scared that the archive was going to get shut down and terrabytes of data were going to be lost to the ether. I’m more in the music side of things, because shit I like goes missing all the time there and I don’t like it, but despite not being a book person it’s annoying as shit.
I would say that the limitation of readership is entirely intentional on the parts of the plaintiffs. If you are not of the correct class, they do not want you to have access to their books. If you are too poor, you do not deserve the material in their books.
As someone who has archiving random links on the Wayback Machine as a passtime, I think this lawsuit is stupid. I support the Wayback Machine in this. Let people have their free books.
This is a point Cybershell has made before, but let this be a reminder for you all; if you care about something, save it yourself. Don't trust anything to always be there forever.
Whoa whoa, what's that about the founder of Reddit killing himself? I'd never head that. I googled founder of Reddit and it didn't even come up. Had to add more keywords. Maybe there's an episode topic if many people are similarly ignorant about it as I was.
Excellent video, as always. Just felt a little off on the dates, since the podcast has been recorded before today. Could you put the recording date on the description? So we could understand better up to where the podcast is on compared to the recent news and alike.
they better not screw over internet archive because that's where all the old gaming magazine PDFs are.
They can't erase things physically downloaded to your storage device
GET DOWNLOADING MEN!
@@Ayyem93 also all the torrents people have
Tips & Tricks, MacAddict, Nintendo Power, PSM, Electronic Gaming Monthly, GamePro, Game Informer, ect. They have guides and instruction manuals too!
There's the entire run of Archie Sonic including specials and spin offs, there's the whole series of Sonic The Comic which includes all the other Sega comics made in the UK that weren't Sonic, Sprite comics like 8 Bit Theater and Mega Man Sprite Comic...
May I remind the public that the EU has done multiple studies on the effect of piracy on direct sales and found that there is no significant loss of income for companies involved.
gotta start directly affecting them
Perceiving "money that you could have made" as a loss is complete logical fallacy bullshit anyway. 99% of pirates would not buy the shit they pirate if they couldn't pirate it.
Finally we have the net lore bonus video.
*doilus video.
@@GuyDude-hk8uy i understood that reference
The way cybershell said "Doilus Stage" was by far my favorite
@Sean Barrett it's a funny one, considering it almost sounds like an actual word.
There are those who said this day would never come. What are they to say now?
Reminds me of the whole “Z-Library incident”, but that one was waaaay more extreme (straight up piracy). There’s still college textbooks from z-library circulating online for broke college students to download, except they keep getting stricken down by the FBI.
What urks me is that most college textbook publishers just re-publish the same book and re-arrange the contents. Then they’re like “give me $250 for this book you will use one quarter”, and then the teachers don’t even use those required books.
Most teachers and students I bump into have told me to “just google the pdf.” I want to “pay the worker his wages” but I still hate the state of things.
Also, the internet archive is a Godsend for hundreds of different things. E.g., you can only find a few promotional N64 mario renders with the wayback machine.
Really? If they're not on the Mario Wiki then you should really put them on there.
The Internet Archive is genuinely one of if not the most important websites ever. Think about the books that aren't being printed anymore. Think about books that aren't available in certain regions of the world. Think of the books that only have limited prints. I've looked at art books and video game guide books on there because guess what, they physically are not available to buy officially any more. And here's the thing, if it's not on the Internet Archive, people will just pirate it. I had to pirate academic journals to cite for a college assignment I did on digital piracy and the accessibility of knowledge and information.
IA is also great simply just for the Wayback Machine. I have a video idea I've been working on and I genuinely COULD NOT make the video without the Wayback Machine. I support the Internet Archive entirely, and anyone against it is either ignorant or downright stupid.
precisely the reason they should be archiving KF. if that information gets shot down there is no public source. at all
This is not just a bonus episode, this is an important enough issue to be a full ass episode. It's a goddamn crime that the Internet Archive is at any risk at all
I for one stopped to think, isn't it kinda shitty that so many nonprofit websites are run entirely on US servers? Because that affects everyone in the world. Like actually, I'm from Brasil, and the price for a lot of niche books is outrageous. And as someone that stives to be an animator in a country that has 3 universities with an animation course, the internet archive helped me so much with anatomy and drawing books, whereas the book that I read costs a whopping R$ 300 on amazon.
This lawsuit not only is elitist, it comes out as outright americocentric and kinda racist, they are blocking knowledge not only from the most successful country in the world, they are blocking knowledge in the poorest countries in the world.
Companies are actively trying to make the world an even more unequal place to live, with one of the things that came to break a small part of that unequality being the internet, the blocking of certain aspects of it actually deprive some people of the chances of not living in misery.
Prolly the fifth person to mention this but, a few minutes ago the San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a Resolution in Support of Digital Rights For Libraries, which was passed by Connie Chan whose district includes IA. It makes San Francisco the first municipality to codify the importance of digital libraries and controlled digital lending in a resolution. It's not a *total* win and to my understanding doesn't erase the undercurrents of what you discuss in the episode. But it's a huge first step and a little light in the darkness that hopefully will be signs of a good future for the archive. You can read more on the IA blog. Great vid =)
I was a public librarian for about 8 years. Im not surprised by the outcome of the lawsuit, but i am beyond disappointed that it went that way. Publishers are a menace to freedom of information, all decent librarians have beef with publishers because protecting freedom of information/intellectual freedom is literally one of the core principles of librarianship.
The United Nations actually had to create a treaty - called the Marrakesh VIP Treaty - to get around how dreadful publishers are about copyright. The treaty allows libraries to make accessible copies of books for print disabled patrons, i.e. if you are blind and want to read a book but your library doesnt have an audio ot braille copy, you can request your library convert said book to your preferred accessible format (this also applies to all disabilities that impact a person's ability to read print books).
Little is likely to change as a result of this for traditional libraries because they have already been held to these standards. It's a terrible outcome, but it was always the only possible outcome in a world where the UN had to create an international treaty to protect traditional libraries from breaking copyright law so that they could digitise or reproduce books to make them accessible for disabled people, including those who are completely unable to read print because they're literally blind.
In a fair world those gaps in publishing accessibility would not exist, however publishers only produce what they think will sell the most copies, which is why not everything gets an audiobook (which is still not an accessible option for everyone because Deaf people and people with other hearing related disabilities exist and can also be blind or have a print disability, but audio for all books is literally the absolute bare minimum they could do to include the most print disabled people).
I could go on about this forever from an infinite amount of other angles other than just Marrakesh and accessibility, but F publishers, all my homies hate publishers.
Also in case IA Library goes down, you local library almost certainly has a digital library too - it just isnt as extensive, but digital library books are still available.
Wouldn't be a cybershell project without a bonus video
Imma be real, this podcast has lasted 4 more episodes than I thought it would considering Cybershell's track record of disappearing. But I'm always happy to get a Netlore episode so thanks Netlore your content really is so niche and well researched I'm all for it.
Well researched? That Faxlore video was nigh off the cuff.
I don't know why people even subscribe if he never keeps up with any of his channels. I like his content, but imma die of old age before he makes it to 100 videos.
@@macuser7048 people not subscribing to a channel they like because they upload rarely is genuinely so bizarre and ailen to me. I Don't get it
@@ewetwentythree yeah exactly they're just not being a nuisance to me
@@macuser7048He already has 126 videos, though?
Corporations are digging their nails more and more into peoples lives and there is nothing we can reasonably do to stop them. Corporate greed has gotten to the point where nothing can escape it.
Anything else would be communism
"Nothing we can reasonably do" time to stop being reasonable with them
Direct action
that just means we need to UNREASONABLY do something
It's our own fault.
I like that the internet archive has a lot of old obscure black and white movies and I’d be really upset for that to disappear.
I just did a quick search and found out my book is on the Internet Archive with 144 views. While that could have been sales in all honesty I don't care too much and I'm happy to just know people are reading it in anyway they can!
This podcast is so good. Guys, please keep this up. This is abolsutely the kind of content the internet needs these days.
We need more netlore hurry it up partners
You can't rush art
There's a simple two-part question that definitively disproves the idea that piracy is just for getting free stuff. Find anyone who's pirates things before and ask them two questions:
1. Have you ever pirated something that you already owned?
If "yes," clearly, there are things that piracy offers besides just the opportunity for theft, and if retailers understood this, they could try to offer those benefits themselves.
2. Have you ever pirated something and then purchased it?
If "yes," clearly, pirates aren't just trying to save money. They spent money on something they already owned, and if retailers understood why, they could try to find a way to make the piracy step unnecessary.
I've asked these questions to tons of people, and every single person has answered yes to both.
In general the thing I've noticed the most with piracy is a majority of pirates would sooner not purchase the product at all, then buy it legitimately if it was the only option to them, meaning that a lot of these supposed lost sales weren't even going to happen in the first place.
Update for anyone seeing this recently: A second circuit court of appeals heard their case mid summer 2024, and the discussion (originally scheduled for 20 minutes) went on to last over 90 minutes. The court took both arguments very seriously. In the end, they decided that they could not make a decision at the bench, and opted to make a legal decision in time. That answer could come late fall or as late as next year, according to the judges.
If you want to know more, I encourage you to look it up,
Netlore, the only podcast where the mini-episodes are longer than the normal ones
And yet when I say that the whole root of the problem is that you have to _pay_ in order to be able to live at all people call me socialist as if it's a bad thing
It’s been 8 years. The NETLORE 2 bonus video is NEVER coming out
Lmao, now people are gonna get in cybershell's ass for this
@@matt_sm0He might not mind, that's his business not ours
the gradual increasing corporate grip on the internet is really concerning to me, especially with worldwide democratic backsliding.
Man, I discovered many old and niche book and media on the IA. Very disappointing that it lost the lawsuit tbh, I hope the Internet won't see mayor repercussions from this.
"Anyone who pirates something and loves it will spend money on it" is the other side of the "Every pirated copy is a lost sale" coin. They're both equally ridiculous assumptions.
Yup. I've always done that, but I'm in the minority on that, and am fully aware of that. Peope just use that argument because they don't like the negative connotation associated with it.
If you're gonna do it, be honest accept what comes with it, which includes misinformation and ignorant comments from those that vilify it. The conversation is a tiresome one because no one gets to the bottom line.
That's a fair point, but I think it's pretty obvious which of those is closer to the truth.
Especially when you consider the value brought by an expanded audience, and that, in the *vast* majority of cases, people who pirate the work wouldn't have bought a copy anyway, for whatever reason. Twisting people's arms doesn't result in more sales or more money, and the way that most successful digitalized companies work, including the one we're on right now, are testaments to that.
And, to be clear, I'm not saying that everyone, everywhere, all the time should pirate everything they weren't going to buy, or that everyone who makes anything should be okay with that, just that there's almost always more to be gained by trying to help people engage with what you're making than making is difficult. Accessible pricing, cycling paid content into free content, etc. People would feel less of a need to pirate, because people don't generally do it for fun, they do it because they feel pushed to.
They're almost certainly wrong, and I'm especially not a fan of pirating content by small(er) creators, but I think it's obvious to everyone that piracy doesn't cause that much lost revenue (except for in secondary markets I suppose, but even then).
@@SaberToothPortilla I've worked in the industry and I can confirm all of what you've said.
In fact, the "anti-piracy" campaign is actually more of a way of holding on to current whales that you have hooked. It strengthens brand loyalty by making them feel like they're taking the "right" stance.
This is why you see so few piracy cases in court, because they don't care. It's all posturing for their current consumer base and is done in every industry, because the "us vs them" mentality makes millions.
You can see the success in how defensive most consumers are about the subject, especially due to the fact that their true hangup is not neccesarily the pirating, but the subconcious buyers remorse. They cope by spending even more in order to feel "better".
People would be quite surprised about how much psychology goes into business.
"We think there is a fundamental misconception about piracy. Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem. For example, if a pirate offers a product anywhere in the world, 24/7, purchasable from the convenience of your personal computer, and the legal provider says the product is region-locked, will come to your country three months after the U.S. release and can only be purchased at a brick and mortar store, then the pirate's service is more valuable."
- *Gabe Newell*
not really, because people who pirate either will never be able to pay for what they took, or they get the means to do so later and actually do so
it may be impossible to wonder why even do that when you were able to get that thing for free, but it's because having a paid working copy is a lot easier than having a likely busted and not fully functional pirated copy
especially when games get updates and dlc, you're going to have to go through hoops to get the same things if you don't already have them
It's a shame that a digital library in San Francisco can be ganged up on by publishers owned by a French group, a German conglomerate, and a corporation with majority shares held by the Murdock family.
I love international free trade and multinational corporations. They make the things and we give money for them.
These are definitely important issues. I'm glad IA is still fighting.
Last few seconds made me spit my drink. Thanks.
Further points: is lending a book to a friend stealing? is reading the book to a group of friends stealing? Are schools stealing when they tell kids to share a textbook? Or when they photocopy sections of books they don't have 200+ copies of for the students?
super happy y’all covered this!!! so many people don’t understand just how important having books, and raw information available to the public is. I’m currently in community college, and I’ve been using the internet archive because my Japanese language textbook is on there that I can borrow for free!! if it wasn’t for the internet archive I would’ve had to pay over $300 for a book that we don’t use in class at all and only need 1/4 of the time for homework, but is essentially when we do need it. I remembered the day I went to get the books I needed and ended up crying at the register because I couldn’t afford that and my workbook and had to make the decision to put it away and try to find cheaper options online. There were none, except for the internet archive.
This lawsuit was NO GOOD.
Netlore is become a top tier podcast.
Oh hell yeah man, I love publishers and companies going to extreme levels to squeeze every potential sell they can get, in fact, I hope they sue every library in the world. Sigh...
The Internet archive is incredible, so this case makes me so mad. But I especially hate the fact that there's nothing really we can do about it. We just have to sit here and wait to see how it resolves, tho it's not looking good.
As much as I believe in the idea of freedom of information, blocking all sorts of advertisements from my browser while adding paywall bypassers, and even despising Nintendo to the point where I do not want to spend a single cent on any of their products, I think the Internet Archive kinda walked into this one.
I understand that the pandemic leading to many libraries being closed was the main motivation behind the Internet Archive opening the National Emergency Library. But in my opinion, the moment they stopped with the restrictions with the number of copies allowed for borrowing was the moment they made themselves a target, since they basically started redistributing without the prior permission of the publishers. There is no way in hell with the current legal landscape would this possibly be defensible. The opt-out option does not help either since publishers could argue that there may still have been "damages" between the time this started and the publishers chose to opt out. The Internet Archive should have at least disclosed or discussed to the publishers that they were about to do the emergency before doing it to prevent themselves from getting into trouble. I can't think of a way the Internet Archive could win this legally.
I want to make it clear that in no way I am defending the publishers' actions, nor am I advocating for publishers to have even more control over works. I love the Internet Archive but I think they could've done better here.
Regardless, this was a good episode that taught me details about this legal battle I haven't heard of before. Keep 'em coming.
rlly great video. glad to see some1 talk abt how stupid chuck wendig being thrust into being the face of the lawsuit is and how it just shifts blame from corporations. also really fucking funny how you can physically feel cybershell biting his tongue. good stuff
The objective of the lawsuit isn’t just about profit, but also keeping society stupid and tame. Knowledge is for all
Corporations are awful. Back in 1999, the drug companies managed to get the U.S. government to lower the point at which people are labeled as "overweight" by ten pounds, making people "overweight" over night. Plus the hold they have over greedy doctors just ruins any chance at people being healthy.
My friends are constantly getting told that they're overweight when they really aren't. I took one to the doctor and I heard the nurse scream out "WOW YOU'RE FAT!" cuz he was ONE pound "overweight". Really? He'd lose like 10 pounds if he took off his boots, clothes, wallet, keys, and watch. Plus they made him drink a gallon of water before he came in. That's almost another ten pounds. Plus he's a runner and has massively muscular legs. Probably 20 pounds more than most people. So he's like 40 pounds away from being "overweight", and 50 away from being actually overweight. But he immediately started going on a diet, falling into the hands of drug companies and their doctory pawns.
We already can't be healthy; now we get to be stupid too...
This just motivates me to keep pirating, and to maybe even step it up a notch (due to hate towards publishers, I don't hold a greievence with paying authors if they sold directly)
Anything that gets big corpos mad is a-ok in my book
We enjoy bonuses here.
I gotta say, it seems like the way Internet Archive does things seems primarily only threatening to the types of big businesses who rely on the requirement for people to pay before they actually see what they're getting. If people only pay for things they actually like, there's suddenly a pressure to make something actually good instead of just something marketable
did you blackmail cybershell? how did you manage to keep him focused for more than one podcast episode
I think Cyber loves Bernie and wants to make these episodes just because of him
This whole situation about the book borrowing system that the Internet Archive had, and it reminds me of the whole lawsuit between Nintendo and Console Classix. Where you could borrow roms that were owned physically by the host of the service, and that rom would only be available to other users only when the current user would end their current session using that rom.
But unfortunately, corporations keep nickeling and diming every method of unofficial distribution. (aside from scalping, they all seem to be fiiiiiiiiine with people reselling stuff for a gigantic cut that will never be seen by the original corporation in the first place)
And to me, the most annoying part isn't the corporations "excercising their right" to gain revenue, it's the incessant bootlickers that would die on a hill defending a corporation that would never acknowledge them.
Like, I don't go on twitter often (thank god), but I bet with complete certainty that there are some people there that are against the Internet Archive as a whole, and their whole argument against it is: "Corporations need munny or they will shrivel up and die, despite the fact they probably already have a fortune bigger than whatever I'll spend in my entire life. Also, if you can't afford to access such a thing (Books, movies, games, etc), then you don't deserve to have access to it, because you're poor lol"
Coming back to this after the Neil Gaiman allegations is truly something.
At one time, he was the poster boy & cheerleader for this lawsuit and now?
He’s shown himself to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing wearing the mask of a Progressive his whole career to make SA that much easier. In a way, he’s proven that Horseshoe Theory is a thing regardless of how much the ultra-communists don’t want to believe it 🤷🏽♂️
But anyways, the Internet Archive is at least still in good standing and I’ve been able to find more shows & books on there than ever!
They didn’t really touch on it too much, but losing section 230 would effect literally any post you make, no matter if it involves a copy righted material or not. It would be Twitter getting the slander lawsuit for your tweet about how “mellow yellow makes your dick small”. It wouldn’t even come down to “getting more mods” because before section 230 offended corporations argued that websites that did moderate their users were essentially backing everything they said by keep the posts up. It may very well be the most important law concerning how the internet we know is run.
The only line that cannot and will not be crossed. The bottomline.
Cybershell made another BONUS video
i only really started using internet archive last year when i started taking an interest in old strategy guides. shortly after i caught wind of this lawsuit happening. unlucky.
online sales are often direct to the creator meaning that they make more money from the sale because they wont have to sell their book through a distributor who will want a significant margin of the profit.
Ah yes, judges and policymakers older than television and greedy corporate bastards. The perfect people to control what’s put on the internet.
@13:35-.-This point sounds like something someone would say when they want to give an opinion, but they haven't actually done any research, and so they just assume some things are true.
I feel better about downloading all of Animorphs because I read all the reprints of the first 6 volumes so far and they actually changed some parts of it due to outdated references. I only know of these references because I read them as a kid and held onto them, but those books are wearing out. I want to be able to pass this stuff onto my nephew and I can't do that or show him how cool the original books are if I couldn't download all those books. The only thing that's missing in those PDF files are the flipbook morph animations at the bottom corner of all the pages. If there's an archived version of those, I will pay for it! SERIOUSLY.
Internet Archive losing was inevitable, lost respect for them when they started redacting stories about people they know. Hopefully they appeal and win
I was looking for this comment. The service is extremely important, but I feel like it'd be destroyed from the inside eventually if not for outside forces
Keffals.
This is the most passionate I think I've heard Bernie talk about anything
The only podcast I care about
If people aren't going to buy it in the first place, that profit does not exist.
There's an entire archive of Flash stuff too like Homestar Runner and Strong Bad Emails, old Newgrounds stuff, ect. This is an important site and should be free for everyone!
THe real issue is that the term on copyright is far too long. it exceed the average authors life by at least 25 years.
Happy to see a new episode!!
Copyright doesn't perform it's original function and IMHO would be better abolished outright.
At least people can migrate to TOR
The reprints of Animorphs reminds me of the reprints of Archie Sonic where it cut out credit to people who worked on the comics as well as censoring the Image crossover.
this sounds a lot like class warfare. "the term class conflict identifies the political tension and economic antagonism that exist among the social classes in a society, because of socio-economic competition for resources among the social classes, between the rich and the poor" - Wikipedia
The media that is owned by large corporations wants you to believe that most of the issues in the world is because of issues of racism, sexism, other-isms, while in reality it's a class issue.
@SuperFranzs yes, but blacks and hispanics are mostly lower/lower-middle class. So when you get right down to it, the class issue *is* a race issue
The Internet Archive is my only way of playing Sonic 3 and Knuckles
Kill it, they are selective, I hate it!
Free stuff won't help if you only keep the "good". If we want to learn, there has to be rubbish that can be recycled if needed.
I like information to get worthless in the sea of copies.
DMCA and Privacy be dammed!
Knowledge seems so novel, because most stay willingly naive. Every information should be free, especially online history. And I don't care of the negative connotation: "That book containing your nudes is now free content."
Copyright laws should not be applied to assets that are not re-sellable and incredibly easy to reproduce with virtually no cost.
Now I am going to be hated for this but a lot of the reasons why I am a proponent of digital libraries, legal or illegal, is the same reason I am not for the expansion of copyright in the context of training images for AI-generated image algorithms. It's frustrating how many people are looking towards these outdated laws as their savior when in many cases these laws have hurt creators more than they did help. If anything this is an information privacy issue, not a copyright issue. Copyright laws are no longer your friends.
I tend to agree, though what exactly "not-resellable" means is a bit vague. Frankly I don't think copyright as it stands is *that* bad, the period of protection should just be much shorter. That said, I do think there should be certain protections that extend probably indefinitely.
Also, as far as the AI training, personally I think people should be allowed to withold from their work being used in training sets.
I get that, prima facie, it isn't substantively different from someone just seeing your work (which, if the web crawler found it, The artist is probably okay with people seeing it), but I think the element of extent is actually important.
AI (generally) make use of that training data in much more direct ways, and obviously much more quickly and much more easily, to the point where it's closer to (extremely sophisticated) collaging than what a person would do with the same information.
In the same way I tend to believe that people should be able to bar the use of their content towards ends that they don't believe in (at *least* while they're alive), I think the same should extend to the incorporation of works in AI. Especially considering the massively disproportionate capital distribution (often, but not always) involved in that process.
@@SaberToothPortilla
>I tend to agree, though what exactly "not-resellable" means is a bit vague.
Something that is not-resellable is a service , unlike a good. You can't re-sell someone's service like a massage, to another person, it's just physically impossible. Likewise, digital art is virtually unsellable on the basis that it is not tied to a physical asset, and replication of it is incredibly easy. In a way, digital assets behaves the same way as services, even though it is more tangible.
>Also, as far as the AI training, personally I think people should be allowed to withold from their work being used in training sets.
In an ideal world, yes, but it will be completely impossible for this to be enforced, considering anyone can copy and paste this asset for no cost. I think it is a little weird how people have been mocking NFT's by copying and pasting them, and at the same time, there are people who wholeheartedly think it is reasonable to think you can regulate the copying and pasting of images on the topic of feeding it to a training set. I think both trying to regulate the act of replication is ridiculous, especially since such technology as stable diffusion is open source and available to the public. Even without an image scraper, the normal person can physically duplicate and store content long enough that they'd create a robust collection to feed into an algorithm.
>AI (generally) make use of that training data in much more direct ways, and obviously much more quickly and much more easily, to the point where it's closer to (extremely sophisticated) collaging than what a person would do with the same information.
I do not understand why people compare AI to collages, which are historically considered a form of transformative art, to argue why it isn't the same as other art. I think if you want to argue that AI is derivative, people need to avoid comparing it to another medium of art. I think it is an argument that actually weakens the point people try to make.
>In the same way I tend to believe that people should be able to bar the use of their content towards ends that they don't believe in (at least while they're alive), I think the same should extend to the incorporation of works in AI. Especially considering the massively disproportionate capital distribution (often, but not always) involved in that process.
On the topic of copyright, the element of "barring incorporations into things creators don't believe in" is not a basis for why copyright was made, to begin with. I think a lot of what people view as copyright abuse can be explained as "barring incorporations into things creators don't believe in", such as an example when Nintendo sends takedowns of modded content. Personally, I don't believe copyright exists so people can invoke it for that purpose, and it's a moot point because a lot of derivative content of the original work is considered transformative on the basis that it distances from the intended message or purpose of the original. I think it is incredibly petty to invoke copyright just to screw over others they disagree with.
I'm fairly sure the only reason why people don't treat digital libraries the same way as AI generated content is that they have a perception that artists are largely exploited workers, which might be true, but I bet you in most cases the one's being actively hurt from people using being added onto training sets are massive companies like Disney, whose work will inevitably be used in the algorithm due to having so many valuable IP's. These companies are the ones that actively lose money from people feeding into the algorithm, and not necessarily privately practicing artists who release their work to the public. The entities capable of profiting from the assets are the companies that own every single frame of the film, and the artists who actually worked on them would never see a cent of that profit, ironically, because they don't have the copyright to the property.
I think it's kinda fucked up if these massive corporations will inevitably use AI in their products by using their wealth of pre-existing assets, but at the same time, people who actually worked on those assets can be liable for breaching fair use if they feed in their own labor into the same technology.
AI will impact the market, but this is not a problem that has to do with copyright, it is the same problem as Facebook taking information from its users to sell them. The issue comes with privacy rights, not copyright. People are not supporting artists by expanding the power of copyright which has been screwing over creators for years.
Netlore bonus video saved my shift❤
i vibe with this so hard on having no pity for anyone against having a digital internet archive
5:14 Neil Gaiman having a bad take? What a surprise!
We live in a dystopia, and not the cool kind.
The archive is fucking awesome. I love it so much dude.
Eventally that entire site will have content taken down until its just nothing but public domain and freeware/abandonware, it makes me sick that laws in this country continue to skew towards money and greed and not human progress.
Yeah, not even all the way through yet, but you guys are spitting here.
Look, I get it, people need to make their money and, prima facie, free access to a resource is a threat to that, but I think it's obvious to everyone that the extent of that threat is actually extremely low.
I'm gonna keep it a buck, I used to be a lot more into piracy (of media anyway, I'll get to that in a second) than I am now, when I was broke and/or resources were not openly available for me to access. That's just anecdotal, but I really do think Gabe Newell hit the nail on the head when he said piracy was a distribution problem, bearing in mind that "exorbitant pricing" can also be a distribution problem.
Speaking as an academic, who isn't in school anymore but still works in R&D, damn near every publisher of anything is trying so hard to fuck you it is insane. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who disagrees with this that is actually invested in the advancement of any field, including people who work for and/or publish with these publishers, including me.
We all know it's fucked, but we have to grit our teeth and bear it because we don't have a choice, and if we want to recommend really good comprehensive resources, we have to tell people to shell out literally hundreds, sometimes thousands, of dollars to access it. Things that we need to do our work, educate people, maintain the body of information etc., and not even necessarily for commercial purposes.
So yeah, fuck that. If they're going to demand being paid handsomely in perpetuity for a nonscarce resource that, frankly, didn't cost them that much to make anyway (relative to a lot of other things anyway), they don't get to complain when people try to subvert them.
Every other industry, for good or for ill, has at least tried to make moves to make these feasibly accessible to the public either by it being free or very cheap when you actually look at what you're getting (think subscription services, which have their own issues, but they're at least asking for amounts that people can actually pay in exchange for access to large libraries)
And the classic argument of "Well normies don't give a shit about this stuff, so we have to charge high amounts to make our money back off of a smaller audience" doesn't hold water. We all know that you've already broke well over even on the shit, it is not that high investment of an industry, and second... maybe you'd have a larger audience if you didn't make journal access cost someone's fucking rent and you... tried to actually sell your shit to a larger audience.
I have literally no objection to people pirating knowledge. It shouldn't be behind a fucking paywall anyway, and I know people who have written textbooks who feel the same way. Hell, I definitely feel that way about publications that I've contributed to, and so does everyone else I know personally, but the publishers don't have the same priorities as us.
And I could even live with it if they weren't constantly trying to undermine natural market forces in every single way possible, like rereleasing the same book 20 fucking times and charging full price every time, despite the fact that it's maybe 20% different at best. Enough is enough man, people shouldn't have their work be disrespected by basically hiding it from the public. Nobody wants that.
But it's never good enough for them to just get paid, they've got to make all the money.
They should feel lucky that Internet Archive (and other forms of digital libraries which are becoming more common, and that's great) aren't trying to give it to them as hard as the actual pirates are, because they deserve to lose any bussiness that they do. If people are trying to play ball and that still isn't good enough for them, they can get fucked for all I care. They *won't* , but even if they were, they wouldn't have my sympathy.
Wow. Thanks for justifying my *completely legal* collection of retro video games over the years.
The whole point of a library is for people to read books! It's an archive!
Also there no way if the was no digital library’s that anyone during the pandemic (where people where losing jobs left and right and had to save there money for what they really need )would be buying the book for themselves
All in favor of the next Netlore being about Pooh's Adventure say aye
Aye
Even if the internet archive wins the lawsuit, they will probably be put in a lot more limitations. maybe a book has to be published a certain amount of time before it can be put there, or different rules between fiction and non-fiction stuff.
Whoops!
BAASED NETLORE!!!
I guess greed really did prevailed in the end
Bbbbbbb........ BONUS VIDEO
There's videos on RUclips that got silenced completely because it had a few seconds of a popular song and the originals can be found on the archive. They aren't profiting from them. Nobody is profiting off of them! It's usually for shits n giggles.
Abolish copyright now
Another thing about the reprints of Animorphs that sucks is they keep dropping the series after like volume 6 or 7. One reprint reached volume 8 and stopped dead. The original book series was 54 books not counting the tie in stories ect. That's annoying. Bad enough they mess with the books by taking stuff out, but they don't even have the common courtesy to reprint the whole run. I'm sure the graphic novels will do the same thing because they didn't plan past volume 6 AGAIN.
The internet archive needs to be ran in a micro nation
Internet archive is a way for people not to actively pirate. Really sad for this
Legit I was scared that the archive was going to get shut down and terrabytes of data were going to be lost to the ether. I’m more in the music side of things, because shit I like goes missing all the time there and I don’t like it, but despite not being a book person it’s annoying as shit.
No way netlore bone is video???
🤯🤯
This lawsuit just depresses me
I hope the internet archive manages to survive and thrive anyway in spite of the corporate bastards being bastardy
I love Internet Archive. Sometimes it's the only way to read a classic fantasy book without trying to find a decent copy to buy
I would say that the limitation of readership is entirely intentional on the parts of the plaintiffs. If you are not of the correct class, they do not want you to have access to their books. If you are too poor, you do not deserve the material in their books.
Can’t wait for the doilous video
Ngl the Archive saved me money on college books lol. The idea of anyone who isn't corporate being against the Archive is stupid to me.
As someone who has archiving random links on the Wayback Machine as a passtime, I think this lawsuit is stupid. I support the Wayback Machine in this. Let people have their free books.
Let the lawsuit become a Streisand Effect for the involved publishers, and their sub-divisions.
I loved the part where they both said “It’s Lorein’ Time”
Then they netted everywhere
This is a point Cybershell has made before, but let this be a reminder for you all; if you care about something, save it yourself. Don't trust anything to always be there forever.
The only episode thats audio only is also the only episode not avalible as audio only
Lol
So let me get this straight, npr runs an article bringing attention to this, which ends up bringing a lawsuit to take down the archive. Wag the dog
Whoa whoa, what's that about the founder of Reddit killing himself? I'd never head that. I googled founder of Reddit and it didn't even come up. Had to add more keywords. Maybe there's an episode topic if many people are similarly ignorant about it as I was.
if you haven't already look up 'Aaron Schwartz'
Excellent video, as always. Just felt a little off on the dates, since the podcast has been recorded before today. Could you put the recording date on the description? So we could understand better up to where the podcast is on compared to the recent news and alike.