Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive • Hacker News Board

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#81

Post by smooth_remmy » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 4:42 PM UTC

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…

1. They use our land to plant a monoculture of pine trees. Zero biodiversity.

2. They use our roads for giant logging trucks that degrade the roads and endanger other drivers.

3. They use our air and our water for paper processing which emits TONS of deadly chemicals.

These publishers have blood on their hands. Force them to publish online only. Close the tree farms, close the paper mill. Convert the tree farms into public parks. Save Mother Earth!

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#82

Post by ghaff » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 4:44 PM UTC

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.

It's probably more accurate to say that libraries have narrow exemptions specifically for preservation and scholarship purposes, especially for works that cannot otherwise be obtained at a reasonable price. Libraries and similar certainly don't have a blanket "Get out of jail free" card for reproducing and making widely available in unlimited quantities digital reproductions just because they're a library.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/108

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#83

Post by tosers4 » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 4:46 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #45

weinzierl wrote: post #36

The Internet Archive does great work and please support them if you can[1]. Still, they are a single point of failure[2] and if they should falter one day it will be a big loss. What we really need - in my opinion - is a second mainstay - an archive of the archive so to speak. [1] https://archive.org/donate/ [2] Yes, I know about archive.today (formerly archive.is) but their extent is no way comparable to archive.org…

Library Genesis serves as an unofficial alternative to Internet Archive' Open Library, with no lending controls and copyright restrictions (as they operate outside of US jurisdiction and make no attempt to adhere to copyright law, similar to SciHub). To your point, the Internet Archive most definitely needs to operate in a distributed, global fashion to prevent a single country from causing a loss of cultural data be…

Isn't SciHub just a rich "client" for LibGen?

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#84

Post by api » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 4:46 PM UTC

BitwiseFool wrote: post #18

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…

If libraries weren't an ancient concept that preceeded copyright law they'd be illegal today.

You're probably right, but this doesn't solve the fundamental problem.

People who do intellectual labor, such as writing books, must be paid because everyone must be paid. Nothing is free.

There are two options:

(1) Copyright law, which allows them to erect toll booths and charge readers and users for their work.

(2) A socialist type of system where writers and other intellectual laborers are supported publicly.

The cyber-libertarian crowd is unhappy with both these options. They want everything to be free in all ways.

Since intellectual labor is not free, Jeff Goldblum's Law (from Jurassic Park) comes into play: life finds a way. The way to support oneself in the cyber-libertarian everything-is-free world is by either overt advertising or whoring oneself out as a propagandist (covert advertising).

A third variation also exists that combines aspects of both: surveillance capitalism. In surveillance capitalism all the free stuff is placed on a platform that spies on its users and the data is used to drive both overt and covert advertising.

This is why a simple news web site is 20+ megabytes of trackers, ads, and surveillance crap, and why every platform seems user-hostile. It's also why an increasing amount of intellectual product whether it be books, news, podcasts, etc. is actually political or other forms of propaganda. You can make money by shilling for political parties or political agendas. You can't make money by being balanced and honest and level headed. The work will be much higher quality but nobody will pay for it.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#85

Post by pbhjpbhj » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 4:48 PM UTC

user5994461 wrote: post #60

BitwiseFool wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If libraries weren't an ancient concept that preceeded copyright law they'd be illegal today.

Libraries would be only illegal in the US though, because all these copyright issues are US specific. Archive.org might as well rebase itself somewhere else.

[My personal opinion, unrelated to any employment:]

FWIW I've studied copyright informally in UK, USA, and to a lesser extent other countries.

In UK our "Fair Dealing" is highly restrictive compared to USA's Fair Use.

Our (UK) archiving rights extend only to a couple of institutions and then only to people attending the library in person. We don't have rights to make backups; we don't have rights to format shift (except to help the disabled).

Yes, copyright specifics apply but wrt archiving USA is far from the most restrictive regime.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#86

Post by toomuchtodo » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 4:48 PM UTC

tosers4 wrote: post #83

toomuchtodo wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Library Genesis serves as an unofficial alternative to Internet Archive' Open Library, with no lending controls and copyright restrictions (as they operate outside of US jurisdiction and make no attempt to adhere to copyright law, similar to SciHub). To your point, the Internet Archive most definitely needs to operate in a distributed, global fashion to prevent a single country from causing a loss of cultural data be…

Isn't SciHub just a rich "client" for LibGen?

Implementation detail I gloss over for the audience.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#87

Post by RunningDroid » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 4:48 PM UTC

user5994461 wrote: post #60

BitwiseFool wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If libraries weren't an ancient concept that preceeded copyright law they'd be illegal today.

Libraries would be only illegal in the US though, because all these copyright issues are US specific. Archive.org might as well rebase itself somewhere else.

>Archive.org might as well rebase itself somewhere else.

That would probably be extremely expensive given the fastest way to mirror the IA is with a truck full of hard drives.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#88

Post by Wowfunhappy » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 4:49 PM UTC

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 under the National Emergency Library, a very large number of people can read one copy of a book at the same time. That makes it completely different from a library "lending" system, regardless of whether user actions are tracked.

Whatever your thoughts on the IA's practices, it's worth being clear on this.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#89

Post by marvindanig » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 4:50 PM UTC

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?' That's not how environment math or nature works. I hope better sense will prevail eventually and you'll come around to accepting the evil industry behind all that jargon.

Edit: 'Carbon zero' is probably the best spot to be on, but isn't an achievable goal no matter what path the industry takes. However, the net carbon impact with digital circulation is less than 0.0003% of what a dead tree circulation would achieve nationwide in all US with a bestseller. Trying to find the research behind this now, will update shortly if I can find it.

Edit2: Republished this comment because Dang flagged it earlier, before I could edit/polish my response.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#90

Post by H8crilA » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 4:50 PM UTC

Thank you HN for keeping me up to speed - my usual monthly donation to IA will get a one-time boost.