Yeah I’m wondering as well. It seems to save webpages, whereas the issue is with scanned books which may be removed from IA…

So child porn is okay then? You would already have it on your system

You’d have to look for it, knowing fully well that it is illegal to produce in the first place and distribute to others, access it online, and then deliberately retain it. It’s not really the same as something that’s legal to produce and distribute (it is certainly legal for me to view your site). You wouldn’t “already” have it.

I doubt you are either.

Well I’ve read some copyright laws, had to solve some issues regarding usage of copyrighted works, etc. Nothing that makes me an expert, but I’m not talking wholly out of my ass either.

It does… on paper… A lot. https://time.com/6266147/internet-archive-copyright-infringement-books-lawsuit/ To the point it’s losing lawsuits over exactly that.

That’s not Wayback Machine per se, that’s Internet Archive’s book scanning and “digital lending” system, which was most definitely doing legally questionable (and stupid) things even to an amateur eye. However, Wayback Machine making read-only copies of websites has for now never been disputed successfully.

What do you mean by “saving a copy”? I still have the .doc file somewhere in my emails. If I told you I’m a serious published writer, and then you asked me where you can read my texts, and I sent you a .doc that hasn’t been proofread, would you take me seriously?

You don’t have any rights to do anything else with it.

That’s patently false. At a minimum, I can quote parts of your content, just as you can quote smaller portions of any published text anywhere, you don’t have to ask the publisher or author for permission. It’s also ridiculous and impossible to control, the content is on my private machine already, how can any law be relevant or exerted upon what I do there? I doubt you’re writing this comment on the basis of your knowledge of copyright law.

Incorrect. Your browser made it do that. How that data is accessed and displayed is not controlled by me.

You’re arguing semantics that really don’t make any difference. The display is irrelevant, because the data by itself is stored on my computer before it is displayed. That data is what you’ve put up online to be accessed.

Owning the CD grants you a license to the content on that CD. That’s about as good as ownership gets there. They own the CD/license. As long as that CD exists/works. You don’t gain that same right by simply visiting a website.

I fail to see the difference between getting a CD with some data (buying it or being given for free, as e.g. a gift) and being sent some data online for free. More importantly - says who? Does copyright law say this about websites?

If an artist makes a painting… and posts a picture of it. They have no rights to the painting anymore? They deserve no ownership/pay for what they’ve done?

This simply doesn’t follow from what I’ve written. They certainly retain the rights to the painting. Besides, “deserving pay” depends on completely different factors than the ones we’re discussing, usually artists sell the actual object, the painting. A digital reproduction is, as far as most people care (I think), merely an informative reproduction, and not the real thing. Stuff that’s posted online for free is… free. It wasn’t intended to be made money with directly.

Your final paragraph is really confusing me, you seem to be saying that Wayback Machine is also committing theft, which I’m pretty sure is not true (I’ve followed the lawsuits against IA for a while and don’t remember anyone invoking that term). And at this point I don’t know what “theft” is even supposed to mean to you or to anyone else, and what was the point of the discussion anyway. Maybe I should reread the whole discussion carefully all over again, but I’m on my phone and it’s all giving me a headache.

, it’s a salty article

Actually the author himself is somewhat harmed by this situation. I would be salty too. When I wish to write my CV, I can say: my text have been published at X and Y. Especially nice if it’s an important and well known publication. Now a part of his CV is literally erased, he can’t access his own texts anymore (not even on Internet Archive). That’s… utterly ridiculous. It’s a common practice to send the author a copy (or multiple) of the text he has published, he has every right to own a copy of them. Now the copy that was intended to be available to everyone is not available even to him. Something of the sort really has happened to me too when a website I published an article on a site underwent a redesign and now the text just isn’t available anymore. Admittedly it’s still on IA, but it’s an awkward situation.

For what it’s worth, I agree with the other commenter and, as much as I dislike AI as it currently is, I have never and probably never will bitch about the scraping. If I put things out there online, I am aware that they may be used in ways that I never intended. That’s how it has always been, after all.

You’ve put it out there for free, though, and the data literally ends up on my machine because you made it do that, so what’s the problem with me saving the data on my machine for later, and potentially sharing it elsewhere for free again?

then publishing it as your own is theft

1. This scenario (misattribution of content) has nothing to do with the previous discussion. The other commenter is making an analogy to CDs, owning a CD and lending it to others doesn’t mean you’re claiming its content is your own creation.

2. Theft implies deprivation of ownership. Calling this theft is like calling piracy theft. It may be illegal by this or that metric, but it’s not normal theft.

Man I miss the times when Google used to trick us into helping make knowledge more easily accessible to everyone. Now we just train fucking AI for luxury cars.

Absolutely the correct stance, nothing dirty about it. At this point, for better and for worse, the Internet is a basic necessity. Imagine having your water turned off because you threw water balloons at your neighbour.

No, there is no default option, just a dropdown that offers docx, pdf, rtf, txt, odf…

Yes, Google Docs exports to ODF.

I don’t think this is the exact cause for the situation, but having more book related forks would probably just do harm by splitting up the audience. The book reading trackers are absolutely dominated by Goodreads, and any alternative desperately needs as much user concentration as possible.

BookWyrm was my first dip into the Fediverse, back when I was looking for an alternative to Goodreads.

Something of the sort has already been claimed for language/linguistics, i.e. that LLMs can be used to understand human language production. One linguist wrote a pretty good reply to such claims, which can be summed up as “this is like inventing an airplane and using it to figure out how birds fly”. I mean, who knows, maybe that even could work, but it should be admitted that the approach appears extremely roundabout and very well might be utterly fruitless.

Clearly you can see it’s an old picture, from the ages when people actually drew/photoshopped new things, before memes were 100% made up of Drake and Wojak variations.

/boomerposting

Same. I learned about the ‘releases’ section only recently thanks to some kind Lemmy user (kinder than some I’ve seen on Lemmy and reddit discussing this same image, some people are openly supporting gatekeeping of software).

One issue is that lemmy is too anonymous and that leads to it not attracting content creators that don’t actually want to be anonymous and want to create a presence

That’s not an issue. Reddit was equally anonymous yet it did just fine (relatively speaking). The different users’ usernames that can theoretically appear the same can be fixed by making it mandatory to show your instance next to your username, rather than hiding it if you change your default username. But even without that anyone can hover over your profile name and see which instance you’re from, so really you can’t actually deceive people regarding the nature of your account.

:o

Your word choice is just bizarre. Nobody would be excluded, they’d only have to make a profile on a different, normal server. And nobody would be “hurt” by not having access to Lemmy’s memes about Linux and similar stuff.

just don’t follow any of them if you’re not interested in any of them

Except that theoretically my “All” feed would still be full of garbage-tier content that people typically expect and post on Meta’s services, and that userbase with its same mindset would eventually spill over into the communities that I do follow too.

Yeah, but they’re separate

They’re literally not.

Threads accounts are closely integrated with Instagram accounts. By default, Threads and Instagram accounts share the same username, profile picture, and display name, although the profile picture and display name can be customized. Users can choose which accounts they follow on Instagram will carry over to Threads, either with the other person’s Threads account already created or set to automatically follow them once an account is created.[36] As of August 2023, if a user decides to terminate their Threads account, they must delete their associated Instagram account as well.[37] Adam Mosseri, the CEO of Instagram, has acknowledged this limitation and stated that they are exploring options for a user to delete only their Threads account.[38]

Users are required to have an Instagram account to use Threads. Threads is a companion app to Instagram, and it uses Instagram to authenticate the user’s identity and connect with their network.[32]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threads_(social_network)