Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive • Hacker News Board

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#141

Post by VonGuard » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 5:58 PM UTC

jawns wrote: post #135

VonGuard wrote: post #25

Publishers: You cannot save our books without our permission. Also Publishers: Oh, damn.... uhm... you want THAT book? Uhm... we don't even have a copy anymore... Sorry.

This is addressed within the press release. IA is claiming that they're mostly making available copies of out-of-print books that are hard to find. But that's not true. Within their "Emergency Library," there are quite a few books that were published relatively recently. For instance, I'm an author of several books. I found one of my books, from 2014, which is still in print, on their list.

How many views does your book have on IA. Very curious to know if it's actually impacting your sales.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#142

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 6:03 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.

[deleted]

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#143

Post by smooth_remmy » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 6:03 PM UTC

blackguardx wrote: post #124

smooth_remmy wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Corn and wheat are essential food items. There is no "digital alternative" to corn and wheat. No one should need to buy a physical book/newspaper in this day and age.

These wood pulp tree farms are producing luxury consumption items for the middle and upper class. Working class people don't read physical newspapers

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#144

Post by JoshTriplett » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 6:12 PM UTC

EvanAnderson wrote: post #133

JoshTriplett wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One clarification: copyright was never a (direct) tradeoff between desires of the public and desires of copyright holders. It's a tradeoff between two desires of the public: the public wants plenty of works created, and the public also want plenty of rights over those works (for purposes such as building more works upon them, remixing, etc). The desires of copyright holders should only enter into that indirectly, ins…

The desires of the owners should be indirect. I wish they were. I think it's fair to say the owners likely started exerting their influence (money for legislative influence) a long time ago. That copyright law has continued to move toward the owner's rights end of the spectrum serves as an indicator that legislators see the owner's interests as an explicit part of the contract, intended or not. Aside from that, insof…

> The desires of the owners should be indirect. I wish they were.

Right. I was stating what should be, and what was originally intended. The clause in the US constitution authorizing copyrights and patents reads "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". Any such exclusive right is granted (not inherent) and should only be provided insofar as doing so will "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".

> re: The "what we should be asking" - I don't think we can conceive of the possible business models that could spring up if changes were made to copyright law. Sure-- some business models might become untenable-- but I don't think entire classes of works would just disappear. I'd rather ask "What new business models or classes of works would be permitted if this particular exclusive privilege were relaxed?"

Agreed completely. Another reason why it's a careful tradeoff for the public to make.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#145

Post by sandworm101 » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 6:16 PM UTC

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…

>> which make published works available for free to many people as well.

The key difference is the copying, the vary thing that copyright is meant to regular. A library doesn't turn one book into many. A digital archive does. That's the difference that draws in the legal system. Some libraries have developed schemes for this (one digital copy available for one person at a time) but this doesn't get around the fact that any digital copy can be copied or translated into different formats.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#146

Post by popinman322 » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 6:16 PM UTC

space_fountain wrote: post #126

thomaslord wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Why would that matter? It's still only available to one party.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#147

Post by sp332 » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 6:17 PM UTC

jawns wrote: post #139

sp332 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an opt-out. And they're partnering with a bunch of other libraries that are closed due to the pandemic so maybe they'll get to count all of those copies as well. They also excluded all books published recently. So I doubt any author or publisher will be able to show significant damages in court.

> They also excluded all books published recently. One of my books was published in 2014 and is on the list. > There's an opt-out. Because authors can opt out of having their books pirated, that makes it OK? How are authors notified about the existence of the opt-out? Oh, they're not? Hmm.

The cutoff was five years. @textfiles on Twitter has offered to help authors with the process. He recommends contacting him via DM to avoid harassment from eager IA defenders.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#148

Post by koolba » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 6:17 PM UTC

SomewhatLikely wrote: post #128

BitwiseFool wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Ah but you didn't buy that book. You merely accepted the EULA for a license to read the content of the pages, as written, in the order presented.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#149

Post by jaywalk » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 6:18 PM UTC

the_af wrote: post #98

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.

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, everyon…

You're equating what we have now (people wanting to make money off their intellectual property) with a fictional scenario where money is no longer needed.

We have to stick with the old way for now, otherwise it would only take one library buying one copy of anything, and it being available to any and everyone on an unlimited basis. That can't work.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#150

Post by cornishpixels » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 6:24 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #73

BitwiseFool wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It seems to me that the First Sale Doctrine makes library lending (among any other use of an individual instance of copyrighted material) legal. Unless you're arguing that the First Sale Doctrine was only created because libraries are older than modern copyright, I don't think I agree.

That's pretty clearly exactly what they're arguing.