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

91–100 of 358 posts

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#91

Post by ghaff »

adventured wrote: post #70
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 permiss…

I'm not sure where you're coming from on privacy. Everything there was public at some point. But, yes, I can't in general call myself a library, scrape any web content I want, and put in on a web site.

A lot of people seem to think IA has some special exemption to do so because they're a library (by some definitions) and are, in general, a valuable resource. But really they do it by being a non-profit, voluntarily respecting robots.txt (even retroactively), and generally taking stuff down when asked.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#92

Post by pbhjpbhj »

seesawtron wrote: post #62
wodenokoto wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 peo…

If it says "buy" in the listing and that listing is in any way endorsed by the copyright owner - eg by not issuing a c&d letter - then you own your copy.

Of course much legal machination will be attempted to assert you don't.

YMMV.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#94

Post by jfk13 »

EvanAnderson wrote: post #68
StormChaser_5 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> nobody lost the use or ownership of any physical article

Presumably the author and/or publisher lost the use of the income they could reasonably have expected to receive corresponding to a certain number of copies of the work going into circulation.

Anyhow, physical articles are not the only things that can be stolen.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#95

Post by Mindwipe »

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.

Many countries pay copyright owners for library lending (the UK for example through the public lending right).

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#96

Post by syshum »

api wrote: post #84
BitwiseFool wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

no it is not the default that " intellectual labor" must be paid for in currency (which is the assumption of your post) my comment here for example is " intellectual labor" but i am not paid for it

There are all kinds of labor that people do with out being paid in currency for it, they derive other value from that labor.

You then present a false dilemma in that it is either copyright law or socialism (public funding), there are a whole host of funding models that have been proven to work over and over again that require neither. Open Source is a ripe with examples, YouTube also provides for some, but there are many others (including complete creative Commons books that are funding voluntarily, and voluntary "Pay what you want" systems)

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#97

Post by zozbot234 »

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #79
d4rti wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no reason that these should be seperate rights to buying an ebook, once.

The right to distribute a thing at scale and the right to buy a single copy for yourself just can't be the same thing. Should a movie theater that sells ten thousand tickets have to pay the film studio for the cost of a single DVD and then be free to do whatever they want?

And yet that's exactly what you're "buying" when you crowdfund a freely redistributable work. Even some movies have been crowdfunded in this way, such as the animation movie Big Buck Bunny.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#98

Post by the_af »

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.

What's really sad is that this is a physical limitation of books that is easily overcome with digital copies. Instead of embracing this new freedom technology brings us, we -- or rather some publishers -- seek to hold new technology back and effectively make it mimic as much as possible the limitations of the previous technology. And this only because it makes business sense to them.

Imagine this:

"Good news, everyone! We've invented Star Trek-like replication technology. I can replicate and provide any amount of food or tools for everyone! It's the post-scarcity society we've always dreamt of!"

"Quick, we must now devise a way to make this encumbered so food and tools cannot really be replicated at will with zero cost, and instead make it resemble how we used to farm/grow food and build traditional tools, or else business as we know it may crumble. Also we need a way to identify and sue people who breach our business contracts!"

It's depressing. A bit like the future that The Murderbot Diaries depict.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#99

Post by marvindanig »

blackguardx wrote: post #32
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. ;-)

Most trees for lumber and papermills are grown on farms like corn (in the US at least). Industrialized paper making can be harmful to the environment, but so is essentially all industrialized activity. E-waste is more problematic. Most phones don't last much longer 5 years and can't be 100% recycled easily while most paper products are biodegradable.

But people don’t have to buy additional phones for the purpose of reading books. Also, dead tree industry can never achieve a global distribution at the scale of the Internet. Look at it the way cassettes couldn’t ever have achieved what Youtube has been able to do for new artists/music.

Also, contrary to what many people are told, pulp farming in the US is super harmful to the environment. The damage isn’t local to each manufacturer either. You might want to look-up into wikipedia for credible info on this.

Post reply on HN