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.
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.
"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 
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.
Copyrighted music and video however (stuff that MPAA is interested in) is not available online, and you actually have to go to the physical Archive in SF to access them. In that sense it works kind of like a library.
Maybe in the distant future there will be a Geocities Museum that has all Geocities pages because enough generations have passed that putting Geocities sites online by default isn't a privacy concern.
It's a really awesome place to visit if you ever get the chance!
Article with rationale: https://blog.archive.org/2018/01/24/digital-books-on-archive...
> 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?
Because these are not physical books. You can give access to them to as many people as you want at the same time.
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?
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.
e.g. clearly the authors of these texts aren't around any more:
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.
I dislike DRM because I don't want to loose access to my content if I switch platforms, or servers go down, or I'm away from internet. If I'm renting something for a couple weeks, none of these problems really apply.
(Yes, you could argue that legally all digital purchases are "rentals", but that's not how most products are portrayed to consumers, and the prices in use are higher than what I expect a rental to cost.)
And some notes on Controlled Digital Lending from the Internet Archive that clarify how they want to use the legal framework -- specifically, to connect patrons everywhere with libraries everywhere so if a copy exists which is available for loan, it can be loaned out: https://blog.archive.org/2018/11/13/wasted-a-case-study-for-...
Edit: searched for articles about it, found this: https://blog.givewell.org/2011/12/15/why-you-shouldnt-let-do...
It's quite possible that the large donor has said I'll match up to $X even if it takes a while to reach that goal - effectively the same as a lump sum.
Especially if they're able to use this to establish recurring donations or reach out to more potential donors when they're fundraising, it can really pay off down the line.
Other people have said maybe this is a way for the large donor to optimize their donations, but personally I doubt it, there would be limited benefit at best to that, it'd only find the most popular charities, not the most worthy and those numbers are trivial to look up. If I had to guess, this is probably something the charity suggested when they were offered a large donation because they can make more from it in the end.
I’ve been that donor and done it that way (not archive.org, so no idea if this is their case).
I gave a disproportinately large amount, was asked if I would be willing to do it as matching. I understand the marketing value and am OK with having my donation leveraged, but can’t be bothered with the actual process of matching. So I donated with the legal stipulation it must be used for matching, and then after the matching, they could keep the balance.
From a company point of view, it's advantageous to match. If two employees want the company to donate to their pet charity, then matching is a way to not accidentally play favorites.
I don't buy this, at all. There's so much money being 'donated' to organizations that decline climate change, or lobby against net neutrality, that those who spend more might actually be the worst use of your money.
You're free to pass on this "deal".
Also, what makes you think that the anonymous donor did not throw in some amount unconditionally as well? We don't know that.
But to echo and add to parent: "matching" donation campaigns make my "regular" donations feel less valuable.
I've set up monthly donations to a number of organizations I want to support. I set the donations at a level that I feel I can afford. Those same (great, worthy) organizations often send out solicitations for special "double" or "triple" matching promotions. I try not to pay attention, because I've already set up a regular donation for the amount I can afford.
But it makes me feel like I'm doing it wrong. Should I cancel my regular donations and put the money aside waiting for a special promotion on donations? Should I choose recipient organizations based on how good their promos are? Maybe I think org A has 130% of the impact of org B per dollar, but org B has a 3X match while org A only has a 2X match this year, so I should choose org B??
I can't logically fathom that my regular donations really are worth less than "matched" ones, but all the hoopla makes me feel like they are.
For example, you may want to donate, but not decide which organisations get donations. You may think that ordinary people should have more power and rich people less, and so your allow small donors to decide your donations for you.
Or you may think that the receiving organisation ought to focus on small donors and its users.
People of limited means judge wealthy people and organizations no matter how much they donate. The wealthy also know that there is diminishing efficacy from throwing money at a problem. So therefore linking it to public interest is the compromise.
I think you and others looked at it backwards, where the public interest is tied to the matching and why it shouldn't be.
This has nothing to do with the motivations of the wealthy matcher.
All parties exist together in an ecosystem.
Either way they are donating when they could easily donate nothing.
Think of it not as "donating", but as crowdfunding for an enterprise that both you and other people might care about. If you donation match, you incent others to pitch in for the effort, because they can "leverage" their own donation. And of course, this incentive effect is a kind of leverage from your own POV as well. (There used to be a _formal_ proposal for a 'fully decentralized' form of donation matching as crowdfunding for public goods at https://snowdrift.coop, but I'm not sure if that effort is going anywhere...)
But if it is something like an npr pledge drive where they say "for the next hour all pledges will be matched"or like this then I don't look at it so cynically.
One had already cashed my check. One hadn't. If that matters.
Whether this plays out like this in practice is different, and you would likely never hear about it because it would devalue the influence of donation matching if people know the donor will donate the full amount anyway.
Seems like trying to encourage other people to donate to a cause they find worthy is a thing worth doing. It's one thing if they're making the same donation anyway - as the article points out, that's dishonest. But if they do tie the donation to the received donations, how is it a bad thing?
> also want to donate to the cause that I feel is most important for me to support, not to who has the best deal
Of course - that's up to the donator in all cases. You donate to what's important to you. But things like this can move someone from "I keep meaning to donate to them" to "Now's a good time to donate to them".
"Carl and Denise, who each have a fixed charity budget of $1. Carl and Denise are effective altruists, and want to maximize total utility with their charity budgets.
Charities A creates 3 utils per dollar, and charity B creates 2 utils per dollar. By default, Carl and Denise will each give to charity A, creating 6 utils.
Charity B approaches Carl with the idea that he make a match offer. Carl jumps at the opportunity to cause $2 to be given to charity B, creating 4 utils, one more than he'd have saved before. Denise finds out about the match offer, and switches her donation to charity B, on the same basis. But the total amount of money moved to charity B is not the "doubled" $2+$2=$4, but just $2, resulting in 4 utils. This is less than before!"
Yes, the donors ultimately make the decision in both cases, but the matching complicates it somewhat. The donors aren't being forced, but are only being subtly tricked into making their decision based on illusory matching rather than making it based on which charity they think is best.
I'm not sure what this means. You don't buy into it as a donor whose donation will be matched? Or as the one doing the match? Or as a charity? What is there to buy into?
>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.
I understand the sentiment. I do not, however, see this as any different from an influential person donating and telling the world they donated, in order to raise awareness of an organization/cause. In both cases the goal is to advertise an organization that they think is worthy of donations. And yes, both are manipulative behaviours. As is any kind of persuasion technique. I know many of us don't like the ad industry these days, but persuasion by itself is not immoral, and can be quite positively moral.
>If they care and have the money and are going to refuse to donate it unless people of limited means donate,
If it means that on average the organization gets more donations than without this technique, I'm OK with this aspect of it. At the end of the day, if I like a charity, I want to maximize the amount of money it can receive. If I have $100K and I set up a 1 for 1 matching, and individuals like you and me give a total of $60K, then yes, I gave only $60K and not $100K. That leaves me with $40K to give to some other charity (preferably with a similar deal). The net effect, though, is that the first charity got more money because of my match than if I had just given them $100K. And now another charity will get more money than had I just given $100K.
As a donor (wealthy or otherwise), I've set aside money I intend to donate. Whether I give it all to one organization or split it up across organizations is the same to me. I want to donate to them because I like them. And because I like them I want to maximize how much money they can get.
I really don't see this as any different from me posting on Twitter that I strongly support Archive.org and everyone should support them. Except I may be wealthy and not famous. So I'll use a tactic more appropriate for my situation.
I think your concern may be that poorer donors will now prioritize a matching arrangement for donations than non-matching. Perhaps - I would like to see a study showing it. While I do know people often donate when a match is announced, I've yet to find someone who goes shopping for matching arrangements. I'm sure such people exist, but they are probably in an extreme minority. If archive.org had been a mere 1:1 match, my instinct isn't "Let's see which charity out there has an even better match!" It's "Cool! I like archive.org and should have donated a while ago. Let me just do it now."