Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Wolf480pl (wolf480pl@mstdn.io)'s status on Thursday, 05-Sep-2024 21:52:47 JST Wolf480pl

   I think Internet Archive and other libraries should be allowed to also lend digital copies.

   (I also think AI companies should be required to get licenses for every text they scrape)

   But the law and its interpretation isn't always what we'd like, and that's a risk IA should've taken into account. And I think it was reckless of them to endanger their primary goal of digital preservation by doing the righteous-but-risky ebook lending.

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 05-Sep-2024 21:52:46 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @wolf480pl The whole concept of "lending" with proprietary software is unacceptable.
     
     Attacking people with proprietary software is not righteous.
     
     Yes, ((((AI))))) companies should be prosecuted for the copyright infringement they do for profit - but of course the government won't do that.
     
     
     Regardless of copyright restrictions, non-commercial individual sharing of books to any of your neighbors should be allowed - moreso with books that are decades old and clearly not in print anymore.
   • Embed this notice
     Sick Sun (sun@shitposter.world)'s status on Thursday, 05-Sep-2024 22:04:27 JST Sick Sun

     in reply to
     @wolf480pl It seems impossible to get people on here to see that, IA was reckless and it hurt their primary mission.
   • Embed this notice
     Wolf480pl (wolf480pl@mstdn.io)'s status on Thursday, 05-Sep-2024 22:11:47 JST Wolf480pl

     in reply to

     • 翠星石

     @Suiseiseki i do not know the details of how Internet Archive did the lending.

     Maybe they made people check a checkbox saying "I promise I will delete it after the lending ends" ?

     Also, I agree about individual neighbourly sharing, but this is not abiut that. This is abiut libraries, who are *not* individuals.

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 05-Sep-2024 22:11:47 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @wolf480pl >Maybe they made people check a checkbox saying "I promise I will delete it after the lending ends"?
     They implemented it with adobe's digital handcuffs in adobe's proprietary software.
     
     I don't see a problem with individuals choosing to share books via a library server.
   • Embed this notice
     Noraweed (noraweed@shitposter.world)'s status on Thursday, 05-Sep-2024 22:13:22 JST Noraweed

     in reply to

     • Sick Sun
     @sun @wolf480pl IA was reckless, but I also want these publishing houses burnt to the ground. So anything that attempts to erode their control over books is to be enjoyed. Even if it's not advisable for the entity in question.
   • Embed this notice
     Sick Sun (sun@shitposter.world)'s status on Thursday, 05-Sep-2024 22:13:22 JST Sick Sun

     in reply to

     • Noraweed
     @Noraweed @wolf480pl I agree about the publishing companies but I don't think this did any damage to them.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 05-Sep-2024 22:40:31 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @wolf480pl Everyone friendly is my GNU/Neighbor and I gladly share with all of such.
   • Embed this notice
     Wolf480pl (wolf480pl@mstdn.io)'s status on Thursday, 05-Sep-2024 22:40:32 JST Wolf480pl

     in reply to

     • 翠星石

     @Suiseiseki there key thing avout neighbourly sharing is that you can name each of your neighbours. If you share something with every rando on the internet who searches for it then it's not neighbourly sharing anymore.

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 05-Sep-2024 22:44:25 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Sally
     @sally >open LLMs
     You appear to be "openwashing" things.
     
     So far I haven't seen a LLM that I am confident is free software.
     
     
     In practice such LLM's aren't being used to free proprietary things, rather they are being used to proprietarize things that were previously under a free license.
   • Embed this notice
     Sally (sally@shitposter.world)'s status on Thursday, 05-Sep-2024 22:44:26 JST Sally

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki
     @wolf480pl
     
     I think that open LLMs that infringe copyright are fine, the fact they don't do it for profit makes them even more based.