• @FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -46 months ago

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

    • @conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      36 months ago

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

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

        • @conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          26 months ago

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

          That’s starting from scratch.

          • @FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -46 months ago

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

            • @conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              2
              edit-2
              6 months ago

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

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