Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Internet Archive responds: Why we released the National Emergency Library

blog.archive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 150 posts

Re: Internet Archive responds: Why we released the National Emergency Library

#71

Post by flafla2 »

sneak wrote: post #68
flafla2 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that for game ROMs specifically, opening them to the public domain devalues potential opportunities for re-releases and remasters. The Nintendo virtual console service and S/NES classic are prominent examples. So it isn't so simple that there is "no harm done" by forcing game ROMs to fall into public domain. That all being said, I still agree with you. I really don't care how much money Nintendo, Micro…

> I really don't care how much money Nintendo, Microsoft, or Sony wants to make on decades-old games, at a certain point it becomes a cultural artifact. Why does time need to pass for that to be true?

Fair, perhaps a better phrasing of my idea is "at a certain point cultural artifacts should have a guarantee of preservation".

Re: Internet Archive responds: Why we released the National Emergency Library

#72

Post by silverreads »

geofft wrote: post #62
tomrod wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of physical books not available otherwise due to lockdown. I figure that is sufficient justification.

What's preventing a library whose physical premises are closed from saying, "Okay, there are 10 copies of this book that literally nobody can get to, we'll lend out 10 e-books," using the old Controlled Digital Lending model? That is, what about the lockdown requires moving away from the established (even if not court-tested) one-to-one basis and making a new fair use argument about uncontrolled digital lending?

> What's preventing a library

It's a huge waste of taxpayer money?

Re: Internet Archive responds: Why we released the National Emergency Library

#73

Post by sp332 »

thescriptkiddie wrote: post #70
tzs wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Furthermore, if any court finds that your action was not appropriate, I will urge my lawmakers to craft a specific exception to copyright law to support the internet archive lending at all times, not just during a national emergency. Would there be any limits to your proposed exception? Or could they buy a single copy of a book and lend out as many simultaneous copies as readers asked for?

Congratulations, you have invented the library. Snark aside, how is this any different than going to your local library and feeding quarters to the photocopier? Scale?

I mean, that's also definitely copyright infringement. Scale just gets you attention from the lawyers. There are extremely narrow exceptions, see page 6 here: https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ21.pdf

Re: Internet Archive responds: Why we released the National Emergency Library

#74

Post by sp332 »

egfx wrote: post #28
mcherm wrote: post #24

Dear Internet Archive: Not only do I support the measure you have taken and feel that it falls within the bounds of pro-social fair use, but I applaud the measures you have taken that are so important in this extreme time. Furthermore, if any court finds that your action was not appropriate, I will urge my lawmakers to craft a specific exception to copyright law to support the internet archive lending at all times, n…

But sucks they neglected gifcities. It hasn’t worked for a while https://gifcities.org/?q=dog What happened?

There's a contact email at the bottom of https://gifcities.org/?about-gifcities Maybe just ask them?

Re: Internet Archive responds: Why we released the National Emergency Library

#75

Post by geofft »

silverreads wrote: post #66
geofft wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of terrible things have been done by people who went too far in pursuit of what they thought was the public good. One potential proportionate response, in my opinion, would have been to lean harder on the existing model of Controlled Digital Lending (where each lent e-book is backed by a physical book), and instead of saying they're going to move to uncontrolled lending, put out a call for people to buy more ba…

This comment hardly adds anything productive here and makes a heck of an accusation. What damage has sharing books freely during a national emergency ever done to anyone? The authors lose nothing and gain readers.

It seems quite clear to me - the authors lose their livelihood. Authors can (and generally do) write at home, and they can (and generally do) sell e-books. Their livelihoods are not inherently at risk because of a quarantine. This action puts their livelihoods at risk. You can certainly argue that they shouldn't have such a livelihood for whatever reason, but the fact remains that they do.

You may as well ask, what damage has sharing food freely during a national emergency done? What damage has sharing housing? Money? All are at least as important as books, and all are worth sharing during certain forms of emergency, but I hope we'd agree it would be quite wrong for me to walk into my local grocery store and walk out with everything without paying, saying "For the public good!", and then give things out. Perhaps we should nationalize the grocery stores and the apartment buildings and the banks - but such a decision should (at most) be made by the government, not by some individual non-profit.

Again, there are less drastic measures that don't cause this. Expanding Controlled Digital Lending would actually mean the authors lose nothing, and gain them readers. (Or, you know, do this except only for orphan works or not-available-in-ebook works or something. That would also meet the stated goals.)

Or simply have the Internet Archive contact authors, say "We scanned your books into e-books, want to make them freely available? You'll lose nothing and gain readers," and then make it their decision.

Re: Internet Archive responds: Why we released the National Emergency Library

#76

Post by geofft »

silverreads wrote: post #72
geofft wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's preventing a library whose physical premises are closed from saying, "Okay, there are 10 copies of this book that literally nobody can get to, we'll lend out 10 e-books," using the old Controlled Digital Lending model? That is, what about the lockdown requires moving away from the established (even if not court-tested) one-to-one basis and making a new fair use argument about uncontrolled digital lending?

> What's preventing a library It's a huge waste of taxpayer money?

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. It's a huge waste of taxpayer money for a library, which is already closed and which is already in possession of lots of books, to share those books electronically? How is taxpayer money being used here, let alone wasted?

Re: Internet Archive responds: Why we released the National Emergency Library

#77

Post by bsanr2 »

geofft wrote: post #65
bsanr2 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's not how copyright works in the US. Maybe it should be, but it's not. The owner of a copyright gets to say how it's used, they don't merely have a right to refuse to uses if they're aware of them. I'm not sure how Youtube et al.'s situation is different in these regards. In both cases, the takedown process is covered under the DMCA, no? > Copyright doesn't protect data, it protects the creative expression of…

> I'm not sure how Youtube et al.'s situation is different in these regards. In both cases, the takedown process is covered under the DMCA, no? The DMCA (specifically OCILLA / section 512) is about the liability of YouTube as an intermediary who hosts other people's videos. If I decide to post a YouTube video where I do a dramatic reading of the Windows source code, I am still breaking the law - the DMCA merely prote…

Understood. Since you're knowledgeable: this goes back to some other portion of copyright law, yes? Are copyright holders required to sue in order to force the alleged infringer to cease infringement? In the process of the suit, when might an alleged infringer be forced to take down the material in question? And under what circumstances would they claim damages versus a simple takedown (if, for example, the work in question is out of print)?

Also, I'm curious to know your reaction to the second part of my reply.

Re: Internet Archive responds: Why we released the National Emergency Library

#78

Post by silverreads »

silverreads wrote: post #72
geofft wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's preventing a library whose physical premises are closed from saying, "Okay, there are 10 copies of this book that literally nobody can get to, we'll lend out 10 e-books," using the old Controlled Digital Lending model? That is, what about the lockdown requires moving away from the established (even if not court-tested) one-to-one basis and making a new fair use argument about uncontrolled digital lending?

> What's preventing a library It's a huge waste of taxpayer money?

You know exactly how much an SRE makes. That's not what a library should be spending money on. Simply making a copy is thousands of man hours simpler than making a consumer facing online asset tracking system. You wildly misrepresent my obvious intent.

Re: Internet Archive responds: Why we released the National Emergency Library

#79

Post by sp332 »

sp332 wrote: post #11
thelean12 wrote: post #2

Why reimplement waitlists later if this is legal? Is the answer that it probably isn't legal and they're just hoping for the best here?

Copyright infringement is generally a civil matter. That means someone has to bother to sue you before there are legal consequences. They're betting that publishers won't take the PR hit of suing a non-profit providing a public service during an emergency. And since the opt-out is so easy, the amount of damages someone could claim are probably pretty darn small.

Late edit: they're really going out of their way to remove authors who don't want to be included. https://twitter.com/textfiles/status/1244793574073524229

Re: Internet Archive responds: Why we released the National Emergency Library

#80

Post by geofft »

thescriptkiddie wrote: post #70
tzs wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Furthermore, if any court finds that your action was not appropriate, I will urge my lawmakers to craft a specific exception to copyright law to support the internet archive lending at all times, not just during a national emergency. Would there be any limits to your proposed exception? Or could they buy a single copy of a book and lend out as many simultaneous copies as readers asked for?

Congratulations, you have invented the library. Snark aside, how is this any different than going to your local library and feeding quarters to the photocopier? Scale?

There's a big difference between "the library" and "the library, where you use a photocopier": when a book is in more demand at the (normal) library, they buy more copies. That translates into more profits for the author. Authors like libraries for this very reason; authors do not like libraries-that-photocopy. Fortunately for them, there seem to be very few libraries where, if you go to check out a book, the librarian offers to photocopy it for you instead.

The change the Internet Archive made is that they previously had a model of lending e-books that were backed by physical copies, and now they have a model of letting as many people read the e-book at once, without reference to physical copies. That means they've shifted from the library model to the library-that-photocopies model.

Also, the photocopier at every library I've seen has a sign warning against non-fair-use copying of copyrighted material. So, one big difference is in intent, not just scale. Your average library discourages you from feeding quarters to the photocopier. This one has posted a sign arguing that unlimited copying is fair use for the next few months, and is handing you a roll of quarters.

Post reply on HN