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

151–160 of 358 posts

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#151

Post by jawns »

sp332 wrote: post #147
jawns wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

So the Internet Archive believes that copyright protection for creative works should extend no more than five years past the date of publication?

I'm all for copyright reform, but that's a preposterously short period. One hundred years ago, copyright lasted for 28 years, with the potential to renew for another 28 years.

Even if you went back to that copyright term WITHOUT the renewal, five years is still less than 20 percent of that.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#152

Post by space_fountain »

popinman322 wrote: post #146
space_fountain wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well right now that isn't true. IA suspended limiting the number of loans they issue to the number of books they own.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#153

Post by cornishpixels »

space_fountain wrote: post #50
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 think this press release is missing an important details. While previously IA only allowed the same number of books that they owned to be lent out as part of their response to covid they've dropped that restriction. As much as I like IA if copyright is to continue to exist that can't be legal. http://blog.archive.org/2020/03/24/announcing-a-national-eme...

Meanwhile, all the copies of those same books which were purchased by libraries are now sitting on library shelves, unable to be loaned out.

The copyright holders have already gotten paid.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#154

Post by sloum »

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.

Yes, and industrial farming is a known major problem that wreaks havoc on the environment and in the case of animal farming at an industrial scale commits horrible atrocities. So yes, you are right... it is not just pulp trees at issue.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#155

Post by jancsika »

Mindwipe wrote: post #103
VonGuard wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did it because the pandemic has closed libraries coast to coast, and it was a nice thing to do for people. Imagine that, making a decision not based on money or liability. I know, fuck them, right? /s

> They did it because the pandemic has closed libraries coast to coast, and it was a nice thing to do for people. Imagine that, making a decision not based on money or liability. You mean a stupid one that endangers everything else you do, yes? Robbing a bank and giving away the money is a decision not based on money or liability, but you shouldn't be very surprised you still get put in prison for it.

> Robbing a bank and giving away the money is a decision not based on money or liability, but you shouldn't be very surprised you still get put in prison for it.

You've picked the one circumstance-- an unprecedented worldwide pandemic that is wreaking economic mayhem-- that could possibly weaken one of the indefatigable "pre-digital analogies for understanding digital ethics."

I would not be surprised if the police were unable to locate a culprit who had been handing out monthly $1200 cash bundles from bank robberies. (Especially if they delivered the bundles on a dependeable schedule.) :)

Edit: clarification

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#156

Post by flowersjeff »

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…

Agreed all around.

The sooner we can put this data/historical records atop decentralized solutions, the better.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#157

Post by cornishpixels »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #92
seesawtron wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It doesn't even matter whether the copyright owner likes it or knows about it or not. Selling a used book is legal.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#158

Post by jawns »

VonGuard wrote: post #141
jawns wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think it's affecting sales of my book, but that's beside the point.

Copyright is about more than sales. It's about the author having the right to determine who gets to distribute and profit from their creative works.

That's why you'll hear about authors and their estates turning down seemingly lucrative deals, such as movie adaptations. If the copyright holder doesn't want their work to be used in that way, they get to say no.

And the Internet Archive's "we presume you've said yes unless you opt out" system flies in the face of those protections.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#159

Post by cornishpixels »

Shank wrote: post #116
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…

Archive.is/Archive.today is currently embroiled in a petty battle against CloudFlare DNS users, which is, imho, contrary to the spirit of an "archive" that is supposed to serve as a backup for things. I would rather support essentially any other service than one that actively tampers with DNS resolution for petty reasons. https://community.cloudflare.com/t/1-1-1-1-does-not-resolve-...

A "petty battle against CloudFlare DNS users"? No. They require a standardized DNS extension in order for their services to operate properly, and CloudFlare is waging a petty battle against the standard.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#160

Post by cornishpixels »

StormChaser_5 wrote: post #132
sudosysgen wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Me too. I would love to be able to make anything I write free while having all my material needs seen to and only writing for the love of it/prestige. But we don't live in that society. I guess we could argue about semantics but depriving me of my ability to legitimately profit from my work while the IA wrapped itself in a flag of doing good seems like at the very least a very low form of behaviour, as well as illega…

And so long as people use that logic, we'll never live in that society.
Post reply on HN