IA isn't raking in large amounts of $$$ like Google, and a rare good actor like them really could use some support from one of the many fortunate users on this site who won the RSU lottery by simply doing what they love in this unprecedented decade of technology fueled personal wealth.
I agree. I started donating more than a decade ago. At first, my donations were motived not by altruism but by self-interest: I was saving a lot of money by downloading out-of-copyright books from the IA rather than buying reprints or used editions, and I wanted to help keep the IA in operation.
I've since come to understand and respect the IA's overall mission more, and my annual donations now are motivated slightly less by selfishness.
Neither of these approaches are obviously very useful for web archival (wayback machine), so there they already need to step closer to the fire. But it seems they can manage it by being very responsive to requests from owners and providing controls for websites, so that helps there.
The things I personally find more objectionable are projects like this https://blog.archive.org/2019/10/13/2500-more-ms-dos-games-p... where the copyright status is pretty unambiguous and which unlike websites were not before distributed publicly for free. Nor is public distribution really as material to the nature of the content as it is for websites.
The sections that are really inviting trouble are the "community audio/video" collections. As far as I can tell those are completely uncurated and unmoderated. Unsurprisingly the sections are full of crap, I don't know what they were/are thinking in keeping those open. I find it bit difficult to see how absorbing all that is doing anyone any good.
The amount of effort we put into curation due to license and the amount of content lost because of our ownership policies seem to be coming more clearly into view as we consider the costs those choices incur.
> 1,150,246 30.22% no known independent preservation
I love the fatcat, this coverage graph is so nifty. :)
Redundancy in a variety of organizations & technical regimes best ensures durability against all risks. So the IA's efforts here should be encouraged, and those of every other project able to take on similar duties.
And if vaguely implying that the IA is inadequate, please at least hint at potential alternatives who are or could be doing the necessary work instead. Note that anyone concerned about IA's longevity can and should leverage IA's groundwork – such as by mirroring its collections elsewhere, as is fairly straightforward either via explicit coordination or even dark/uncoordinated scraping.
Having said that, the spotlight on the IA does give opportunity to raise the profile of web archiving and digital preservation generally; we just need to be careful not to invest everything in any one initiative - as the parent comment fairly points out.
Any chance you could point me to some other initiatives? I'm always interested in finding more repositories of information.
International Internet Preservation Consortium is an active body linking many of them.
There are various resources giving information on tools etc, eg.
For this particular use case, Perma.cc has significant institutional backing.
"it only asks for a halt to the practice of copying books for loan in the Open Library itself, not the entire IA"
"the lawsuit takes pains to clarify that the publishers aren’t trying to shut down the rest of the Internet Archive"
"the lawsuit seeks financial damages only for the sharing of 127 books under copyright"
"the most the Internet Archive would have to pay would be $19 million — essentially equivalent to one year of operating revenue, according to IA tax documents. That’s a huge setback, but for the IA, a tech nonprofit that relies heavily on grants and public donations, it’s not the major death blow it might seem to be."
Sounds good to me.
My understanding is that most authors will send you a copy if you contact them. If the authors are okay with open access, doesn't that make paid journals just rent seekers?
If peer review is the value proposition justifying paywalls, then be aware that none of the money goes to the people providing that value.
When you buy an article through a paywall, you are not paying the author of the article and you are not paying the peer reviewers. Why does it still cost so much? Because they can get away with it. Academia is conservative and changes very slowly because all actors want to preserve their prestige and status and any change may upset the current balance of power. People are used to this system, they've learned how to play by its rules (journal reputations, number of publications, citations, metrics like that).