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

Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

publishers.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 358 posts

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#61

Post by zozbot234 »

jasode wrote: post #53
saagarjha wrote: post #9

> Despite the self-serving library branding of its operations, IA’s conduct bears little resemblance to the trusted role that thousands of American libraries play within their communities and as participants in the lawful copyright marketplace. IA scans books from cover to cover, posts complete digital files to its website, and solicits users to access them for free by signing up for Internet Archive Accounts. I wond…

>I wonder how they feel about actual libraries, which make published works available for free to many people as well. If we're talking about "digital" lending instead of physical books, the traditional libraries "play nice" with publishers by buying DRM ebooks and lending out a limited number of copies. This is what they mean by traditional public libraries being "participants in lawful copyright marketplace" . IA sc…

IA's lending is not unlimited, even with the National Emergency Library. The books are still restricted by DRM, they do keep track of how many copies are out for each book, and they do monitor the system to prevent abuse. It's a real library lending system, nothing like what they do with actual public domain works.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#62

Post by seesawtron »

wodenokoto wrote: post #28
saagarjha wrote: post #9

> Despite the self-serving library branding of its operations, IA’s conduct bears little resemblance to the trusted role that thousands of American libraries play within their communities and as participants in the lawful copyright marketplace. IA scans books from cover to cover, posts complete digital files to its website, and solicits users to access them for free by signing up for Internet Archive Accounts. I wond…

I’m surprised this hasn’t happened earlier. Say what you want about the current copyright system, but buying a single book and lending it out one at a time and buying a new one when it wears out, is obviously different than handing out unlimited digital copies.

e-books are very tricky when it comes to copyright. Even the retailers who sell the ebooks on Amazon (or elsewhere) are not really the "owners". It's always the publisher who is considered to be the owner. So technically you do not own the ebook you bought, you just license it for yourself on your device(s). [0]

Isn't there an ongoing lawsuit against Amazon on this issue where someone is suing them for misguiding people about ownership when you "buy" an ebook from them?

[0] https://goodereader.com/blog/e-book-news/this-is-the-big-rea...

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#63

Post by tzs »

en4bz wrote: post #21

There's a reason this as filed in the southern district of NY [1]. IA will lose based on the results of the Redigi case. The court found that in the case of a digital phonorecord that the "tangible medium" was the hard drive of the device it was downloaded to. Thus if you want to resell an MP3 you need to sell your hard drive. You can't just copy it to someone else's and then delete it. Any copy other than the origin…

Your link was broken by HN, which tends to get confused by links that end in ".". Here it is with the trailing dot encoded so HN will not mess it up:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_LLC_v._ReDigi...

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#64

Post by marvindanig »

falcolas wrote: post #20
marvindanig wrote: post #2

A gentle reminder that these are the same publishers who also advocate that harvested tree pulp industry does not impact the environment. As evil as they come. ;-)

They... don't impact the environment. The trees they use were planted for the sole purpose of being harvested. And new trees are planted for every tree that's harvested. ~~If anything, they're a net positive for the environment, since they're sequestering carbon into books.~~ EDIT: I'll acquiesce that they may not be a net positive, since there are carbon costs associated with the entire process. But, using purpose-g…

> they're a net positive for the environment, since they're sequestering carbon into books.

You mean like 'clean coal?' Got it.

And no thank you, that's not how environment math or nature works. I hope better sense will prevail eventually and you'll come around to accepting the evils under all that jargon.

Edit: 'Carbon zero' is probably the best spot to be on, but isn't an achievable goal no matter what path you take. However, the net carbon impact with a digital circulation is less than 0.0003% of what a dead tree circulation would achieve nationwide in all US with a bestseller.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#65

Post by ikeboy »

zozbot234 wrote: post #47
ikeboy wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that it was upheld on appeal, and so is precedent for the entire second circuit. However, I think this may be different. Defendant is a non-profit and isn't reselling anything.

They're also a library, and copyright law has broad exemptions for libraries that enable them to scan books for preservation purposes. So it's not clear that the "tangible medium" issue matters here.

There's an ongoing lawsuit involving a non-profit offering free live TV using what appears to be a loophole in the copyright laws. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locast

That particular loophole probably doesn't apply there, but similar ones might.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#66

Post by mardifoufs »

DominikD wrote: post #19
TylerE wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a normal library, they have to obtain one copy for each copy checked out.

They do that (or used to at least). Each book has a single scanned copy that only a singe person can have "checked out" at any given time. There's a waiting line you sign up for.

That's how they used to do it, but is that still the case after they introduced the emergency library? I thought they now lend unlimited copies of the book unless the authors opt-out, and imo it's a little bit legally shaky for them to simply go against the law unless you ask them not to?

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#67

Post by falcolas »

simias wrote: post #43
falcolas wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is happening (I recently got a kickstarted atlas of Mars - how fricking cool is that?!). But then the authors also have to do their own marketing and promotion, another care taken over by the publishers for these few authors.

And editing. Good editing can be very important. There's a lot of "R&D" work being done by publishers, I don't think it's fair to equate them to a glorified kickstarter. Same goes for music studios and movie producers. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Agreed. I'm doing some amateur proofreading for a hobby, and it's a lot of work to properly proofread large bodies of text.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#68

Post by EvanAnderson »

StormChaser_5 wrote: post #57
EvanAnderson wrote: post #7

Why can't the publishing industry just hurry up and die? They provide fewer and fewer valuable services as the marginal cost of content distribution approaches zero and they just seem more like rent seekers.

As a self published author I have to say that the publishing industry is providing a huge service to me and the rest of the industry here. The IA blatantly stole the work of thousands of people. They saw a problem and wanted to act - laudable. They could have done that be arranging to buy unique copies of each book they lent out. Or they could have tried to come to some agreement with the publishers. Or a bunch of ot…

They didn't "steal" anything. If you mean copyright infringement, say "copyright infringement". There's no scarcity involved-- nobody lost the use or ownership of any physical article-- so nothing was "stolen".

re: your business model being sustainable if the current "industry" goes away - Maybe that ship has sailed. You can't make a living being a buggy whip manufacturer or an elevator operator anymore either.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#69

Post by space_fountain »

zozbot234 wrote: post #61
jasode wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I wonder how they feel about actual libraries, which make published works available for free to many people as well. If we're talking about "digital" lending instead of physical books, the traditional libraries "play nice" with publishers by buying DRM ebooks and lending out a limited number of copies. This is what they mean by traditional public libraries being "participants in lawful copyright marketplace" . IA sc…

IA's lending is not unlimited, even with the National Emergency Library. The books are still restricted by DRM, they do keep track of how many copies are out for each book, and they do monitor the system to prevent abuse. It's a real library lending system, nothing like what they do with actual public domain works.

But for copyright to mean something and for the authors to get paid IA's emergency library can't become the norm right? If they don't enforce limits on the number of copies what does it matter that they monitor the number of copies.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#70

Post by adventured »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #54
throwanem wrote: post #4

Even the press release doesn't do a good job supporting the infringement claim. They just baldly state IA isn't a real library and then hurry back to reiterate their infringement claims and talk about why infringement is bad, without ever actually explaining how IA's actions qualify as infringement. Looks like palming a card, to me.

Making unauthorized copies of copyrighted material is infringement. That is why you weren't allowed to photocopy entire books before electronic distribution was viable. IA isn't on solid ground here.

Nobody in this thread is discussing IA's massive violation of privacy and the way it entirely ignores GDPR as well. They won't survive any serious privacy protections in the US, it'll destroy their archive top to bottom, as they have no idea what's in it and it opens them up to unlimited liability for privacy violations. First their content knowingly violates copyright in an across the board way (they have no permission to copy and republish most of their content), second it's loaded with privacy violations. There's no scenario where IA continues to exist as-is in the future.

They intentionally make it very difficult to remove content from their archive, even if it contains content that violates your privacy. IA is one of the greatest privacy violators in the tech space. You won't see that discussed very often, the fans of IA go out of their way to dodge that conversation.

Post reply on HN