Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive • Hacker News Board

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#121

Post by toomuchtodo » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 5:23 PM UTC

RunningDroid wrote: post #87

user5994461 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's actually relatively inexpensive to move gear via cargo container. I'd hazard you could move all 10PB of the Internet Archive for less than $25k-50k in shipping costs (~$2k per 40FT container), with labor extra for loading and unloading. (Disclaimer: I have coordinated data center migrations in a previous life)

Although, it's probably more financially efficient for other nations to offer cultural grants for local IA non-profit entities to spin up infra in country and begin mirroring the South SF location.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#122

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 5:26 PM UTC

marvindanig wrote: post #89

falcolas wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Howe…

[deleted]

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#123

Post by sudosysgen » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 5:26 PM UTC

StormChaser_5 wrote: post #111

EvanAnderson wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I will agree that the writing is not stolen when you give every line of code produced by you or that you will produce in the future or any code produced by any company you have ever been part of or invested in to me for free to use as I wish. Until then if you want to read an authors work then you need to pay their (usually very small) fee.

If someone pirates my code that's not stealing, that's copyright infringement.

I would love to live in a society that would recognize the post-scarcity nature of many goods nowadays and de-commodifies them, including computer programs, basic food, and in certain cases housing.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#124

Post by blackguardx » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 5:28 PM UTC

smooth_remmy wrote: post #81

falcolas wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How is it different than corn and wheat? All industrial farms are monocultures.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#125

Post by teraflop » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 5:32 PM UTC

yellowapple wrote: post #117

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…

Also, on that note, [citation needed] on the implicit claim that "signing up for Internet Archive Accounts" is necessary or even suggested to access the content on the Internet Archive. I've used the IA a lot , and not once did it even advertise the ability to create an account (beyond probably some Log-In/Sign-Up button somewhere that I didn't even notice), let alone require me to do so. Still don't have such an acc…

Try clicking on any of the books listed at https://archive.org/details/nationalemergencylibrary. See the big button that says "Log In and Borrow"?

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#126

Post by space_fountain » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 5:35 PM UTC

thomaslord wrote: post #102

jasode wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>IA's lending is not unlimited, even with the National Emergency Library. I'm not debating with you about the details since I haven't used IA's system myself but the last time this came up, a commenter explained that there were a bunch of loopholes in IA's "limits" that it was effectively "unlimited". E.g. after the checkout period expires, you just check out the ebook again. Again, I don't know if this is true. EDIT…

Shockingly, at physical libraries you can also re-borrow a book if there's nobody on a waiting list for it.

Often libraries put limits on the number of times you can do this, but also since IA is currently not restricting the number of copies of a book it loans out that must make a difference no?

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#127

Post by ghaff » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 5:35 PM UTC

VonGuard wrote: post #115

ghaff wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To say nothing of the fact that there are about 20,000 books at Project Gutenberg and countless other (legal) short stories, books, articles, etc. around the web. (And that's before talking video and other multimedia.) It's not like there is some critical shortage of things to read online in the absence of the IA.

You're both so right. The only thing that matters is money.

You are free to give away whatever you want so long as it's yours to give away. For example, the ACM has opened up their pubs during this health emergency which is a nice move on their part. Do I think it would have been preferable for the publishers and IA to reach some sort of agreement? Of course. But, much as I'm a fan of the IA, they shouldn't IMO be doing this unilaterally.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#128

Post by SomewhatLikely » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 5:38 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.

The first sale doctrine protects similar activities such as video rentals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#129

Post by unicornporn » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 5:41 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #85

user5994461 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (exc…

In Sweden we have the super restricted "right to quote"[1]. Fair use seems like a dream compared to this.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_quote

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#130

Post by jimhefferon » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 5:41 PM UTC

api wrote: post #101

syshum wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)…

You are really comparing a Hacker News comment that took 1-2 minutes to write with the content of libraries? It's hard for me to write a civil rebuttal to this. It takes years to write a good book. Years. It's not something you just whip out. The same applies to any non-trivial piece of music, art, software, engineering, design, or any other form of intellectual labor. People spend years and years on that stuff but o…

Your point is very good. However I do want to mention a very limited exception. I am an academic and I write texts that are Free. I figure that a (I hope!) good text raises the profile of my institution and that students come to study at an institution because it has a good reputation. So while, as you say,

> It takes years to write a good book. Years. It's not something you just whip out.

nonetheless these works are freely available.

However, despite perhaps a few exceptions here and there (Kahn Academy is another), overall I very much agree. People have to be be paid. And while Patreon-type stuff is a great idea as far as it goes, it is not sufficient.