Live data from Hacker News

Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

publishers.org

171–180 of 358 posts

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#171

Why can't the publishing industry just hurry up and die? They provide fewer and fewer valuable services as the marginal cost of content distribution approaches zero and they just seem more like rent seekers.

> Why can't the publishing industry just hurry up and die?

Yeah, let's get rid of all the authors, newspapers, magazines, journalists, etc.

I mean, what does the publishing industry even do? It serves no value! And the gall they have to actually try to protect their work and make a living from it? Ridiculous!

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#172
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't know that we have to stick with the old ways, but more importantly, it's depressing when technology is limited in this way. This isn't even morally arguable technology like genetic manipulation, this is simply a post-scarcity situation made, um, artificially scarce. It's never the right time for change; if some companies had their way a post-scarcity world would never arrive ("now is not the time! Think of the economy!"). A Star Trek world would never happen because copyright holders wouldn't let it happen.

It's depressing when people argue "but libraries can only lend as many physical copies as they have" as if this was a good thing about books instead of an accidental limitation.

Actually, that's the concept I was looking for: accidental limitations. It sucks when publishers and media companies seek to turn accidental limitations into mandated limitations, as if they were a law of nature, and when the technology could rid us of said limitations.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

Huh, well I'll be.

I guess I never visited that part of archive.org, so never noticed.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#175

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.

Experiment: try applying the First Sale Doctrine to digital music, video, and software downloads.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#176
post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how is that different from a physical library.

A physical library pays based on maximum simultaneous checkouts. If they want to allow 5 people to have copies checked out simultaneously, they buy 5 copies from the publisher.

And the IA followed that rule too but opened up wider access with an "Emergency" library once lockdowns due to COVID-19 were put in place.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#177

I am involved with a business that is attempting to do a lot of the same things that Internet Archive is doing. I think they do a lot of really good things, and I'm happy that they exist, but I believe they are on the wrong side in this matter. I don't know what they were thinking. I'd love to hear how they arrived at the decision to just brazenly flout copyright law like this. I fear that they have put a lot of thei…

> I don't know what they were thinking. I'd love to hear how they arrived at the decision to just brazenly flout copyright law like this.

In a previous HN discussion [0], @Apocryphon linked to [1] speculation on a possible explanation: that the IA leadership is perhaps hoping for a landmark court ruling [2] that challenges the first-sale doctrine as it applies to ebooks.

Physical books can be lent out freely by libraries but digital goods like ebooks cannot because they are exempted from the first sale doctrine [3]. This forces libraries to enter into separate licensing agreements with rights holders, which is why the IA is purportedly trying to challenge the rent extraction from libraries, albeit in a less than ideal way.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22731472

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22734145

[2] https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1244257620548038656.html?...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine#Applicatio...

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#178

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.

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

In the US, libraries buy the books, etc., they lend, or pay for license agreements for digital media.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#179
Indie publisher here. My company publishes mostly how-to guides relating technology, personal finance, and health. In fact this afternoon I am reviewing proofs of a new title written by a surgeon meant to inform patients (and their family members) dealing with thyroid cancer and thyroid nodules. What I and my peers do for a living is nothing like building rocket ships or designing amazing software applications, but it provides information and entertainment for millions of people every day.

Like many people on HN, I regularly use the wayback machine or other parts of the Internet Archive to track the history of websites or read out-of-copyright and public domain works. Sharing this information is important and should be continued.

I also believe in the concept of "Fair Use" for sharing and discussing excerpts of more current works.

But when it comes to outright republishing of in-copyright printed works, the rights of creators and publishers need to be recognized. The Internet Archive decided that its mission trumped these rights and the laws of the United States. Even when it was asked to repeatedly stop, it continued. So here we are today.

Someone earlier asked the question, "Why can't the publishing industry just hurry up and die?"

I'd like to put the question to those HN members who work in tech: How would you feel if someone took your output without permission, whether it's designs or code or something else unique and hard to make? How would you feel if people cheered this on, or called for your demise, suggesting that the world would be a better place without your work?

The traditional publishing industry has been in economic decline for 20 years, with the number of regular readers declining and most retailers on the ropes. Few publishers or authors make much money, yet the output of authors and publishers grows every year thanks to self-publishing and other trends.

And some of the work published every year is fantastic. I sometimes serve as a judge for indie publishing competitions, and it's amazing some of the work that authors and their publishers are putting out, even though very few titles will turn a profit.

Even if you haven't read a book in the past year or two, it's safe to say at some time you did, or your loved ones did, and it informed or delighted you.

Finally, even if you don't personally care for the book industry, try to show some respect for what we're doing, and the legal and business frameworks we need to do what we do.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#180
post #84

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…

I'd just like to jump in here to point out that most intellectual laborers in the modern world are not paid, at least in terms of a livable wage. Even those intellectual laborers who are paid specifically for intellectual labor, are not paid for writing, for example; they are paid for some other activity with writing as a required side-project.
Post reply on HN