
Archive.org donations are currently matched by a generous supporter 2-to-1 - aw3c2
https://archive.org/donate/
======
edoo
I like archive.org. I've mirrored thousands and thousands of their
math/science ebooks into my apocalypse drive right next to the copy of
wikipedia/wiktionary/wikispecies/etc and every binary/src package for the two
distros I enjoy the most.

~~~
lorenzorhoades
>> _into my apocalypse drive_

I've often thought of what humanity would due given an apocalyptic scenario,
and individually what I would do. I've never thought about creating an
apocalypse drive, but am now considering making one! I'd be curious to see/
compare peoples full apocalypse drive.

~~~
edoo
Mine so far is the ebooks/wikis/distros/every console video game + emulators.
And I'm barely at like 750 gigs.

In theory I'm sitting on most of humanities basic hard knowledge and every
significant piece of Linux source code. If for example a solar flare took down
the grid for a couple years I could help setup local communication networks
with solar and low power computers with long range wifi with web/ftp/irc/etc
servers pretty easily.

------
bdz
Can anyone explain to me how Archive.org is exempt from DMCA? For example you
can download a lot of copyrighted old console ROMs from them. Not abandonware.
How come no one goes after Archive.org? I mean TPB founders went to jail even
tho they don't even host anything. How is Archive.org different?

~~~
AlphaWeaver
I'm not a lawyer or an expert, but looking at the Wikipedia page for the DMCA
[0] there appears to be protection for retro games:

"An exemption was made for 'Computer programs and video games distributed in
formats that have become obsolete and which require the original media or
hardware as a condition of access.'"

EDIT: Actually archive.org posted an article about exactly this [1]

[0]:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act)

[1]: [https://archive.org/about/dmca.php](https://archive.org/about/dmca.php)

~~~
zerocrates
The thing about DMCA anticircumvention exemptions is that they don't last:
they have to be constantly renewed, and the one you mention has in fact
lapsed.

Plus, they only get you out of the "anticircumvention" provisions, not regular
old copyright law or the more familiar DMCA notice-and-takedown procedure. In
other words an exemption may allow you to legally remove or break DRM or other
copy protection, but it doesn't give you any rights to make copies or display
works.

As best I can tell, they seem to be operating on a "see what we can get away
with" model, which appears to be working out pretty well for them.

------
org3432
I just wish they wouldn't partner with orgs who restrict the downloading of
material, it doesn't feel like the spirit of archive.org there are other
places for content providers who want to be neurotic.

~~~
gear54rus
can you elaborate on those orgs? any story to read?

~~~
steve19
I am not the op, but maybe s/he is referring to the fact that you can rent
drm'd ebooks. It was quite jarring when I discovered this, but I was able to
get hold of a rare out of print book.

~~~
gpvos
Apparently it's about these:
[https://archive.org/details/last20](https://archive.org/details/last20) (only
60 books)

Article with rationale: [https://blog.archive.org/2018/01/24/digital-books-on-
archive...](https://blog.archive.org/2018/01/24/digital-books-on-archive-org/)

~~~
dewey
That sound pretty awesome to be honest.

> The digital protection allows books to be lent via downloads that disappear
> (or become inaccessible) when the loan period ends (e.g. two weeks). For
> users who prefer to read their ebooks directly in a browser, the same thing
> happens. The book becomes inaccessible at the end of the loan period, and
> the next reader in line has a chance to borrow it.

That's just how it works in a "normal" library so why would it be any
different? Sure, DRM is bad and all that but if they would just give books out
for free indefinitely it wouldn't be considered a library where you have
access to a certain number of titles for a period of time.

It's either these books not being available for online lending at all or
within the same constrains as a "real" library just easy and online. What's
bad about that?

~~~
Narishma
> That's just how it works in a "normal" library so why would it be any
> different?

Because these are not physical books. You can give access to them to as many
people as you want at the same time.

~~~
dewey
That not unlimited people can rent the same title at the same time is probably
a licensing issue (as they only purchases x copies for lending).

The DRM in this case is mostly about the time limit on the rental though. If
you would get access to the title indefinitely it would be giving away not
renting?

~~~
zandl
The whole project is about preserving information for current and future
generations, so what place does limiting the availability of it have in
history? It’s more likely it’ll just be lost due to DRM when no one can figure
it out in the future. It’s the digital equivalent of losing the books, though
due to someone being more concerned about their pocket book today than for
future generations.

~~~
Wowfunhappy
Would you prefer that the Internet Archive not make these books available at
all? That was likely the alternative possibility.

I assume that the Internet Archive is holding onto the original, DRM-Free
master copies. That's a job I trust the Internet Archive with, even if ideally
I wish the data was more distributed.

~~~
zandl
I would actually, because it sets a bar that if you’d like your book to be
preserved then you need to make a choice, is your book so valuable that it
should be free? If not, there’s plenty of other places for DRM books. What
they’re doing instead is trying to have it both ways.

~~~
zorpner
They are having it both ways. A non-encrypted copy is preserved digitally
within the Internet Archive, and that copy is made available, now, in the only
way it legally can be. Once that copyright expires, the Archive can make the
content freely available to all, having already been digitized.

~~~
org3432
In some cases the content doesn't belong to the person restricting it however,
they're effectively copyrighting the digital medium, do you think that's right
for them to DRM it?

e.g. clearly the authors of these texts aren't around any more:
[http://blog.archive.org/2018/10/04/worlds-largest-
collection...](http://blog.archive.org/2018/10/04/worlds-largest-collection-
of-tibetan-buddhist-literature/)

~~~
Wowfunhappy
> In some cases the content doesn't belong to the person restricting it
> however, they're effectively copyrighting the digital medium, do you think
> that's right for them to DRM it?

No, I don't think it's right for a separate entity to usurp this kind of
authority, but that's not really a battle the Internet Archive can win.

They are doing their best within the restrictions placed on them. If you'd
like to lobby for more sane copyright laws, please go ahead, I'll be behind
you 100%. That does not negate the good being done by the Internet Archive
right now.

~~~
org3432
It's not copyright law or authority, the Internet Archive can just say no.
They can't be forced to take material.

------
mkl
Note that the donation form is in USD, though it doesn't seem to say so. A bit
confusing for those of us in other countries with "$"; the form knew I was in
New Zealand.

~~~
Waterluvian
Canada too. It's one of many Americanizations that we have to tolerate daily
online. And if you think it's bad for the Kiwis or Aussies, because Canada is
in America we are regularly grouped into "America" or "North America" for
things like online store region. Leads to confusions on a regular basis.

------
kennxfl
It's a better cause than buying a $500m boat.

~~~
Scoundreller
What’s the story here?

~~~
toomuchtodo
Brewster Kahle, the founder of the Internet Archive, spent his liquidity event
funds on starting the Internet Archive instead of on what some might consider
waste.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_Kahle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_Kahle)

------
drallison
If you make end-of-the-year donations, giving to Archive.org is an outstanding
choice. Brewster and his team are focused on things that mattered in the past,
are important now, and will form the structure which supports the future.

------
_pmf_
I hate to think what will be lost when Twitter goes belly up.

------
benatkin
I don't buy into donation matching. I think if those wealthy people and
organizations who are matching donations want to donate, they can just go
ahead and donate. If they care and have the money and are going to refuse to
donate it unless people of limited means donate, I don't want to encourage
that behavior. I also want to donate to the cause that I feel is most
important for me to support, not to who has the best deal.

Edit: searched for articles about it, found this:
[https://blog.givewell.org/2011/12/15/why-you-shouldnt-let-
do...](https://blog.givewell.org/2011/12/15/why-you-shouldnt-let-donation-
matching-affect-your-giving/)

~~~
daeken
It's a way to leverage their money. If by matching up to $1M they can get the
group to raise $1.5M, that's better than outright donating that money.

~~~
vortico
Exactly. Organizations offer matching for the same reason donors like to have
their donations matched. Both parties leverage each other.

