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

221–230 of 358 posts

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#221

Post by zucker42 »

jasode wrote: post #53
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 wonder how they feel about actual libraries, which make published works available for free to many people as well. If we're talking about "digital" lending instead of physical books, the traditional libraries "play nice" with publishers by buying DRM ebooks and lending out a limited number of copies. This is what they mean by traditional public libraries being "participants in lawful copyright marketplace" . IA sc…

> IA's unlimited lending

IA's lending is not unlimited, as others have pointed out. From https://openlibrary.org/help/faq/borrow:

> The Internet Archive and participating libraries have selected digitized books from their collections that are available to be borrowed by one patron at a time from anywhere in the world for free. [emphasis mine]

I think we should be careful not to let publishers control the narrative here. Publishers interests in making profits are naturally going to conflict with the public good, and the point of copyright is to promote the latter.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#222

Post by saagarjha »

tzs wrote: post #63
en4bz wrote: post #21

There's a reason this as filed in the southern district of NY [1]. IA will lose based on the results of the Redigi case. The court found that in the case of a digital phonorecord that the "tangible medium" was the hard drive of the device it was downloaded to. Thus if you want to resell an MP3 you need to sell your hard drive. You can't just copy it to someone else's and then delete it. Any copy other than the origin…

Your link was broken by HN, which tends to get confused by links that end in ".". Here it is with the trailing dot encoded so HN will not mess it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_LLC_v._ReDigi...

Thanks for this idea!

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#223

Post by dexen »

ilamont wrote: post #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 i…

>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?

While I'm somewhat ambiguous about this IA matter, the example you bring up is rather unconvincing on HN.

I, just like many other fellow users here, publish our code (both end product and tools) to public, and to organizational, Git repositories.

We have structured our work and our contracts with customers to get paid for the services rendered[1], not the number of zeroes & ones (nor files nor LoC nor other incidental artifacts). It's not only doable, it's also the arrangement closest to fair & morally right we have found so far.

--

[1] yes, including some upfront payments where circumstances warrant it

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#224

Post by mardifoufs »

cygx wrote: post #210
ilamont wrote: post #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 i…

Please clarify: Are you against the practice of controlled digital lending of books scanned from physical copies in general, or do you merely have issues with the 3 months of unrestricted lending?

I think his issue is with the IA unilaterally deciding that they can chose that they want to simply ignore the authors rights to get compensated for their work at any moment they want.

And I totally understand his frustration. It's one thing to have pirating websites that have always distributed copyrighted material illegally. But for IA to decide that they only play by the rules when they want to is different imo. Not only is it bait and switch but it's also just weird to pretend to follow the law when you don't.

Imagine your boss deciding that you just won't get compensated for a few months because they decided to give away for free the software you worked on. If IA wanted to give away other people's work , it's still up to them to foot the bill.

It's not even that I'm totally against piracy, it's just that when I pirate I realize I'm not compensating the author and that if I like the stuff I'll try to do that later. Even the cracking scene tries to put notices on the torrents that if you like what you downloaded, consider supporting the creators.

With how IA presents it's whole program, there's no way to explicitly know that the authors have had no say in the emergency library beforehand and that they don't get compensated . IA looks benevolent but the authors don't.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#225

Post by zucker42 »

jfk13 wrote: post #94
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.

> 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.

If you have a successful bed making business, and I decide to start making beds too, you'll certainly make less profit, but I haven't stolen from you. Deprivation of income is not theft, practically any action you take deprives someone of income.

Most justifications for property (both personal property and real estate) invoke the fact that pieces of property are rivalrous (one person's use interferes with another's). Calling unlicensed copying "stealing" ignores the crucial difference between physical goods and digital files.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#226

Post by dang »

tzs wrote: post #63
en4bz wrote: post #21

There's a reason this as filed in the southern district of NY [1]. IA will lose based on the results of the Redigi case. The court found that in the case of a digital phonorecord that the "tangible medium" was the hard drive of the device it was downloaded to. Thus if you want to resell an MP3 you need to sell your hard drive. You can't just copy it to someone else's and then delete it. Any copy other than the origin…

Your link was broken by HN, which tends to get confused by links that end in ".". Here it is with the trailing dot encoded so HN will not mess it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_LLC_v._ReDigi...

Thanks, yes, and sorry. I've replaced the link in the parent comment with this one.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#227

Post by zozbot234 »

zucker42 wrote: post #220
zozbot234 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IA's lending is not unlimited, even with the National Emergency Library. The books are still restricted by DRM, they do keep track of how many copies are out for each book, and they do monitor the system to prevent abuse. It's a real library lending system, nothing like what they do with actual public domain works.

> The books are still restricted by DRM I don't think this is true for many books, which are scanned copies and available as PDFs or EPubs.

It's definitely true of copyrighted books in the NEL. You're not getting actual PDF's or ePub's, only DRM-based versions are made available.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#228

Post by izacus »

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.

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

You can easily see this if you look at more modern medium: Gaming.

nVidia created a service where we could play games we bought on their machines. The publishers immediately sued and demanded that we be prevented from playing our own games on those machines without paying extra.

Copyright law now has become cancer - just like real cancer, the original base might be something that provided important value, but has now started feeding on the creativity of society and killing progress and freedom.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#229

Post by EvanAnderson »

ilamont wrote: post #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 i…

I was being hyperbolic in that question, to be sure. It's probably better asked as:

When will the publishing industry finally accept that it exists in a world where counting copies made doesn't work as a business model anymore?

Technology isn't going away. The business models will have to change. Some businesses will fail. Some creators will have tragic outcomes. Some works will never be created. Entire classes of works might never be created again.

re: "...took my output without permission..." - I choose not to deal in "intellectual property". I've arguably left money on the table by not. I've chosen not to pursue projects that involved selling licenses for "intellectual property"-- projects that had a decent shot of profitability.

Under the current terms of US copyright I consider it a tainted and morally questionable business. It's not one I want to participate in.

I also have deep moral concerns with the idea that a creator should somehow be entitled to be paid again and again for work done once.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#230

Post by Zonulet »

EvanAnderson wrote: post #229
ilamont wrote: post #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 i…

I was being hyperbolic in that question, to be sure. It's probably better asked as: When will the publishing industry finally accept that it exists in a world where counting copies made doesn't work as a business model anymore? Technology isn't going away. The business models will have to change. Some businesses will fail. Some creators will have tragic outcomes. Some works will never be created. Entire classes of wo…

In the UK, revenue from ebook sales grew 3% between 2018 and 2019. Where is your evidence that the business model of "counting copies" – i.e. selling books to people who want to read them – doesn't work any more?
Post reply on HN