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

281–290 of 358 posts

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#281

Post by pontifier »

0_gravitas wrote: post #278
pontifier wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. Without protections on intellectual property, innovation is harmed. There is no incentive to invest substantial resources in development if there is no ability to profit.

> There is no incentive to invest substantial resources in development if there is no ability to profit. Ever hear of this hip new thing called FOSS?

If you build a building, you expect to be able to use it. If you create a product, you expect to be able to sell it. If you create a new idea, you expect to be able to monetize it.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#283

Post by 0_gravitas »

pontifier wrote: post #281
0_gravitas wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no incentive to invest substantial resources in development if there is no ability to profit. Ever hear of this hip new thing called FOSS?

If you build a building, you expect to be able to use it. If you create a product, you expect to be able to sell it. If you create a new idea, you expect to be able to monetize it.

...except for all the people who don't?

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#284

Post by bsder »

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…

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

I have a problem with copyright being transferable. The purpose of copyright is to encourage the creators. If you transfer a copyright or license it out, its term should get shortened dramatically. "Congratulations--you got a payout. Now make something new."

I have a problem with copyright outliving the author by very much. There will be no further output to incentivize, so why does the copyright persist?

I have a problem with multi-decade copyrights overall. I have a lot less problem with people asking for strong copyright enforcement if it only lasts 20 years.

I also have a problem with multi-decade copyright because it allows corporations to simply sit on works rather than licensing them because everybody is afraid that it might become popular and then they'll get fired--we've irretrievably lost movies and music because nobody would license them and then the vault they were sitting in burned.

I would be far more sympathetic to the "publishing industry" if they were an active opponent to the abusiveness of copyright law. Instead they are merely rent-seekers abusing the system.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#285

Post by mantap »

mardifoufs wrote: post #266
uryga wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Libraries exist because they can lend a book to only one person at a time. this phrasing confused me for a minute, so to clarify: do you mean that if libraries could magically create infinite copies of a book, they wouldn't be allowed to exist, and are only tolerated because their presumed impact on copies-sold is limited?

We have had the ability to just reproduce books by printing them for literally centuries, and even more so since the commodification of printer technology. At even small scales, simply printing a book costs close to nothing. Yet libraries aren't just allowed to make copies of their most borrowed books and lend them away. Libraries are allowed to only lend the number of books they have bought because it's a good compr…

Would it really make a difference if libraries could make copies of their most borrowed books? The book is still being shared by hundreds of people.

Libraries didn't get the right to make copies of books when copyright was invented, simply because libraries didn't need an exemption - it's cheaper to buy another copy than to maintain printing capability.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#286

Post by mantap »

coliveira wrote: post #251
mantap wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do authors have rights to be compensated? If I go to a library and take out a book, the author doesn't get compensated again. The book may be read by hundreds of people but it was only paid for once. If I lend a book I own to a friend, the author doesn't get compensated again. It's my book, not the authors, and I can let anybody I want read it. There has never been an expectation that authors get compensated for each…

This is a flawed comparison. Libraries exist because they can lend a book to only one person at a time. They don't try to provide full access to a book to an unlimited number of people around the world.

Libraries predate copyright by a couple thousand years. The rules of copyright were written to be compatible with the existence of libraries, not the other way around.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#287

Post by mardifoufs »

cygx wrote: post #276
mardifoufs wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have had the ability to just reproduce books by printing them for literally centuries, and even more so since the commodification of printer technology. At even small scales, simply printing a book costs close to nothing. Yet libraries aren't just allowed to make copies of their most borrowed books and lend them away. Libraries are allowed to only lend the number of books they have bought because it's a good compr…

At even small scales, simply printing a book costs close to nothing. I don't think that's true. As far as I'm aware, we're talking dollars, not cents. For mass-market paperbacks, it's less than that, but that's the opposite of small scale.

What I should've said is smaller scales. But yes you are right that it's still going to cost a few dollars , but if it was actually legal to just produce your own copies surely we would see tons of printing shop specializing in very small printing runs that minimize costs. Right now its very expensive to only print a few copies because no business model makes sense at that scale unless it's plain copying which is... illegal.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#288

Post by fernly »

Just for some needed context, here's what IA says about "borrowing a book"[1]. The critical point,

> Click on the book you would like to borrow. You will be taken to the item page and will be given the option to Borrow This book. Click on Borrow this Book. (If the book is on loan, you will be given an option to Join Waitlist)

So, at least before "quarantime", they only propogated one copy at a time of any title.

[1] https://help.archive.org/hc/en-us/articles/360016554912-Borr...

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#289

Post by thothamon »

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…

My questions on this are very simple:

1. Did they legally acquire the books they scanned?

2. Are they only allowing one subscriber at a time to check out/read the book?

If so, then they are doing exactly what libraries do. To argue that there's some fundamental difference between a physical book and an electronic book is exactly why people hate the music industry, and if the publishing industry tries to go in the same direction, they'll get the same results.

Re: Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

#290

Post by solveit »

bsder wrote: post #284
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…

> Someone earlier asked the question, "Why can't the publishing industry just hurry up and die?" I have a problem with copyright being transferable. The purpose of copyright is to encourage the creators . If you transfer a copyright or license it out, its term should get shortened dramatically. "Congratulations--you got a payout. Now make something new." I have a problem with copyright outliving the author by very mu…

> I have a problem with copyright being transferable. The purpose of copyright is to encourage the creators. If you transfer a copyright or license it out, its term should get shortened dramatically. "Congratulations--you got a payout. Now make something new."

That would devalue the copyright and creators would get compensated less. This also applies to a lesser extent to your other problems. Copyright outliving the author increases the value of the copyright even when the author still lives.

I also have many problems with copyright law as it stands now, but the problems are in the details, not in the principle of copyright being transferable, or of copyrights outliving the creators per se.

Post reply on HN