>

Fuck me I have no interest in this at all but after all the shit I've seen on it getting censored I'm watching it tomorrow and taking notes.
Wasn't surprised to see Musk take it off Twitter, since he has no idea what he's doing.
But disappointing that the Internet Archive folded. Why? >

I’m no expert but could it have been a copyright violation for it to be on there? I remember reading a book on the Internet Archive that happened to be out of print some years ago, and apparently it had been removed from the site while I was in the middle of reading it. I assumed they got a cease and desist letter and didn’t want to get sued. >

That's a good theory. But it's the Indian government who objects to this documentary and demanded that it be taken down; it's not a copyright question in this case. >

The government is objecting but if they can object on copyright grounds I am sure they would. >

Copyright is a government concept.
The government can make the law whatever they want to apply criminal or civil penalties for hosting this. There is no “higher level” than the national government, regardless of what you may think of the UN.
So copyright itself isn’t the issue, the government intervention is. How laws interact across countries is a fun area, India may declare it illegal in their country, but that should not impact someone in neighboring China. So Internet Archive taking it down everywhere because that’s what India wants is kind of a problem. >

I understand what you mean, but obviously when you are applying things across the world you are going to end up talking about international copyright law rather than the laws particular to India and their desires.  So if India wants to take down something on a global scale they are going to need to approach it from that perspective, not just Modi saying he doesn't like it. >

Making it a "must see" for those who had previously had no interest. >

That’s the only reason I ever watched A Serbian Film and gave To Kill a Mockingbird my fullest attention… guvment said I shouldn’t. >

Yeah, those two don't even compare. A lot of people say say we shouldn't watch A Serbian Film. >

My buddy told me the plot in detail so I feel I don’t need to watch it😐 >

Yup, just read it on Wikipedia. I’ll take a hard pass on that one. >

Go Team Sanity! Let's just check the summary... mmm hmm... mmm hmm... OH... mmm hmmm... and NO. >

Oof, yeah.  SF is actually on my list of horror films to watch.  After that wiki it's moved down the list a bit.  Or just like off of it--there has to be a proper mood for certain films, and I don't ever expect to be in that mood.  Not all of the recommended obscure/weird films are worth watching. >

Well, now I want to see it. Didn't even know it existed before a couple days ago. >

Right?! I had no real interest. Now, I’m mildly curious. >

I was curious enough to search for and download this. >

Modi never heard of the Streisand effect >

To be fair maybe he's never heard of Barbara Streisand >

I feel like Funny Girl is one of his favorite movies. Or at least the song Don't Rain On My Parade. >

Can’t find the second episode. Let me know if you have it. >

Definition of Streisand effect >

We need a new Internet archive. >

This is enraging. Internet Archive shouldn't be taking down anything it's a gd Archive. >

If it is copyrighted, there's not much they can do. >

There needs to be a pirate archive that can save everything regardless of copyright status. >

You all could just seed a torrent then. From what I've read the archive has enough problems with copyright issues as is. >

Torrents are already a thing, and useful.  A pirate archive would work a bit differently and serve a slightly different purpose.
Torrented files are stored on the personal devices of individual seeders and people who download.
This would be more like the pirate streaming sites, except it stores archived web pages instead of just hosting uploaded videos. >

And that'll work until the FBI takes over the site because of rampant copyright infringement. Just like they did with The Silkroad >

It's my understanding that not all websites are hosted in countries that would allow the FBI or other law enforcement agency to take over the site.  I could be wrong about that tho. >

They'll take over the web address. they'll do this through the Domain Registrars. They'll comply because they want to keep doing business in the US. It's got nothing to do with hosting. It's got everything to do with the domain look up, which the FBI can definitely fuck with. >

TPB has been up for over a decade, despite copyright interests constantly trying to get it taken down, including by fucking with the domains. So it's possible for pirate sites to resist government policing.