Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Activists rally to save Internet Archive as lawsuit threatens site

decrypt.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 409 posts

Re: Activists rally to save Internet Archive as lawsuit threatens site

#281

Post by mcguire »

jacquesm wrote: post #89

I have three favorite properties on the web: Wikipedia, the Khan Academy and the Internet Archive. Whoever thought this was a good idea should own up to it and step down, this was a dumb move if there ever was one and risking one of the prime - and very fragile - properties on the web like this was highly irresponsible. Keep in mind that IA already has plenty of enemies who are continuously monitoring it and hoping t…

Scanning and providing access to digital copies of books was the dumb move---without that, they would not have attracted the enmity of publishers. The fastest and most successful way to avoid the destruction of an organization is always to concede to the wishes of its enemies. Preemptively, if possible.

Re: Activists rally to save Internet Archive as lawsuit threatens site

#283

Post by Retric »

jedberg wrote: post #260

The more interesting thing here is the "controlled digital lending" test case that will almost certainly come of all of this. If they somehow prevail on that aspect and set a legal precedent there, that would resolve a lot of issues for a lot of companies. For example, Netflix could stream every movie ever, as long as they bought enough DVDs for peak demand. Or those companies that would set up 1000 TV antennas in a…

There are several presidents in the older direction. Legally, if the copy is not stored in a location you own it counts as a public performance and needs specific licensing.

An interesting work around might be leasing physical shelf space, playback hardware, and then having someone physically move the disks. But I seriously doubt that would work.

Re: Activists rally to save Internet Archive as lawsuit threatens site

#284

Post by mcguire »

ascorbic wrote: post #10

The publishers should stop now that they've taken them down, but this was grossly irresponsible of the Internet Archive to do this, and they brought it on themselves. Releasing all of these copyrighted books for free hurt authors who rely on royalties to live, and it was inevitable that publishers would sue. I honestly don't understand why they did it. They have a responsibility as custodians of the archive to not pu…

"Releasing all of these copyrighted books for free hurt authors who rely on royalties to live..."

Clearly, we should shut down all the other libraries, too.

Re: Activists rally to save Internet Archive as lawsuit threatens site

#286

Post by hundchenkatze »

mcguire wrote: post #284
ascorbic wrote: post #10

The publishers should stop now that they've taken them down, but this was grossly irresponsible of the Internet Archive to do this, and they brought it on themselves. Releasing all of these copyrighted books for free hurt authors who rely on royalties to live, and it was inevitable that publishers would sue. I honestly don't understand why they did it. They have a responsibility as custodians of the archive to not pu…

" Releasing all of these copyrighted books for free hurt authors who rely on royalties to live... " Clearly, we should shut down all the other libraries, too.

Physical libraries can't, easily, purchase a book once and loan it out an infinite number of copies at the same time.

Re: Activists rally to save Internet Archive as lawsuit threatens site

#287

Post by CaliforniaKarl »

I wish that the Internet Archive had tried to work around this by reaching out to public libraries, and having those public libraries agree to "loan" their still-on-the-shelf books to the Internet Archive. That might not cover all the copies that were simultaneously checked out by people (I don't know the numbers involved), but it would have helped.

Re: Activists rally to save Internet Archive as lawsuit threatens site

#288

Post by mcguire »

lordlimecat wrote: post #186
MrStonedOne wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I honestly don't understand why they did it. Its right there in the article. >In March, as the COVID-19 pandemic led to the shutdown of public libraries , the Internet Archive created the National Emergency Library and temporarily suspended book waitlists Public libraries got shut down, they opened a replacement. Makes perfect sense to me.

>Public libraries got shut down, they opened a replacement And they did it in the most blatantly illegal way possible, with a press release that removed any doubt as to whether the infringement was willful. Brilliant! IA could have, for instance, reached out to local libraries to see if IA could "use" their physical copies for proxies of the digital ones IA was loaning. This would likely have been illegal, but far mo…

False.

The Archive could have eliminated the two-week loan period by distributing the books without DRM.

Re: Activists rally to save Internet Archive as lawsuit threatens site

#290

Post by richardwhiuk »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #138
matheusmoreira wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To remove that protection from people who have already invested their time and money into creating content under those conditions, is simply to defraud them of that time and money, which for a lot of people could amount to their lives work. No. Laws can change unilaterally and society does not owe them anything. If they created something today and the law changed tomorrow thereby destroying the economic value of th…

Since this is the second time you’ve posted basically the same same comment in response to one of mine, I’ll just copy paste what I said last time. Perhaps you’ll respond to it this time? > Whether or not you think the existing copyright laws have exceeded their purpose is a completely different discussion, and one that is not at all related to this particular topic at all. Because the Internet Archive did not only v…

Copyright isn't guaranteed by the constitution. The ability for Congress to create copyright is guaranteed by the constitution. It would be perfectly fine, constitutionally for Congress to degree "there is no copyright".

People being upset isn't a reason to remove a rule.

Post reply on HN