EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers • Hacker News Board

Re: EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers

#231

Post by zucker42 » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 8:34 AM UTC

ALittleLight wrote: post #177

basch wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what makes it not theft. Theft deprives the person of the original. If I have two books and you take one I have one book. If you buy one of my books and give it out, I did not have any of the books I had stolen from me.

Theft does deprive the victim of something. As I've written above, piracy is theft as it deprives the victim of potential sales.

If you own a taco stand and I open a pizza place next to you, I will deprive you of some potential sales. Clearly, that condition isn't sufficient to indicate theft.

Re: EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers

#232

Post by account42 » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 8:41 AM UTC

lend000 wrote: post #142

dctoedt wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're channeling Thomas Jefferson, who himself channeled a Zoroastrian idea. Jefferson said: "... no one possesses the less because everyone possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me receives [it] without lessening [me], as he who lights his [candle] at mine receives light without darkening me." [0] The flaw in this concept is the free-rider problem: 1. Not all new IP can be created as a side projec…

The fundamental issue with our copyright and patents laws are the length of validity. This in turn breeds more issues (with patents in particular) encouraging frivolous patents because there is such a long potential return on investment period. I recommend we decrease patent durations of all varieties by about 50% (patents should never last longer than 10 years as they do now [0]). For copyrights, there is some merit…

> For copyrights, there is some merit to not allowing others to take over your work during the life of the author.

Care to expand on that?

Re: EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers

#233

Post by ALittleLight » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 8:48 AM UTC

salawat wrote: post #208

ALittleLight wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theft does deprive the victim of something. As I've written above, piracy is theft as it deprives the victim of potential sales.

No it doesn't. You can't steal something that hasn't happened yet. E wry game I've bootleggedI've eventually gone and bought When I had the dosh and the terms were right. You can't claim you "lost me as a potential sale." Otherwise, you'd have grounds for counting everyone who didn't buy your game or whatever IP as a loss. Until it materializes, it isn't yours to account for. Just as I can't sue a chicken for the egg…

I regret joining this topic because I think it invites arguments that are only philosophical and people are generally unlikely to change their minds from what they already believe. For example, when I read your comment I already know I disagree with you, and have but to set my fingertips to the keyboard to let the disagreement flow. In the same way, I know you'll disagree with me, and it's hard for me to see how there is anything productive here.

Violating copyright takes potential sales. Those have value. For example, if you had a product worth X dollars, and people had a Y chance of buying it, you could sell the rights to your product based on that value.

Our society respects the concept of potential sales or potential value in many ways. If I lie and say that your restaurant is filled with rats, what am I costing you, if not potential sales? I could sell options contracts that have potential value. If I break the fingers of a master pianist or a surgeon I may be sued for a greater amount of damages than if I broke the fingers of any professional who doesn't need manual dexterity.

Potential value is the basis for lots of business and productive endeavors. It's why society respects intellectual property rights, to give creators a chance to earn something from their work, which, without the supporting legal framework, would be hard to monetize.

I went to Amazon and looked at a top 10 list. The first five books available in paperback and Kindle format are:

https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Books-Literature-Fiction...

https://www.amazon.com/Opium-Absinthe-Novel-Lydia-Kang-ebook..., 4.99, 10.99 https://www.amazon.com/Bone-Jar-Detective-Kirby-Book-ebook/d... https://www.amazon.com/Book-Woman-Troublesome-Creek-Novel-eb... https://www.amazon.com/Someone-Elses-Secret-Julia-Spiro-eboo... https://www.amazon.com/Where-Crawdads-Sing-Delia-Owens/dp/07...

Average Kindle price: 7.51

Average paperback price: 11.7

Kindle is, on average, 64% the cost of a paperback. Combine that with greater functionality and ease of use, and I think the Kindle format is a winner.

Re: EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers

#234

Post by zucker42 » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 8:49 AM UTC

cgriswald wrote: post #192

Gaelan wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And your "crowdfunded patronage" model is still copyright, it's just copyright with a different revenue model. I was thinking it would go something like this: I write a book. I decide that I want to make $100,000 from the book, so I put up a Kickstarter for that much. Once it hits the goal, I release the book into the public domain. Before then, I don't publish the book at all. Unless your definition of "copyright"…

Why am I willing to offer you money for a promise you wrote or will write a book? And why wouldn’t I just wait for others to pay for it? It’s not comparable to physical items. For those, even if the promises aren’t kept, what is promised is generally clear. Usually the Kickstarter is just to bootstrap the production with the intention of future sales so there are incentives in place to make a quality product. And if…

> Why am I willing to offer you money for a promise you wrote or will write a book?

Generally, reputation is sufficient check to fraud in situations like this.

In a simple setup, you may trust the author because they've written many books in the past, and fraud is punishable by law. If the author is new or wants to provide extra assurances, they could release the first few chapters of the book, or in special cases have separate goals for each chapter. In an imaginable more commercialized system, a publishing company might pay the author and advance to write the book, and the handle ransoming the book.

As far as the free-rider problem goes, there is probably some issue with that in our current society, but voluntary financing of creative works could still be more economically efficient that the existing copyright regime.

Re: EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers

#235

Post by zucker42 » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 8:51 AM UTC

thrownaway954 wrote: post #130

Gaelan wrote: post #84

[I typed this up as a reply to a comment that has now been flagged. I think it's a conversation worth having, so I'm putting it at the top level instead.] I'd argue that "intellectual property" is fundamentally different from physical property, and can't really be "stolen" per se. If I steal your car, I have a car and you don't have a car. If I "steal" your book, we both have the book. I'm better off, and you're no w…

"If I steal your car, I have a car and you don't have a car. If I "steal" your book, we both have the book. I'm better off, and you're no worse off. In an "ideal" society, the free sharing of knowledge would be not just allowed, but encouraged." you are so wrong in this mentality. the bottom line is, that someone took the time and energy to write and publish that book to make money, so that person should be paid. wit…

> so that person should be paid

Almost all people agree that creators and publishers should be paid, though perhaps in different amounts than they are now. However, some people think that criminalizing sharing is not necessarily the best way for society to accomplish this.

Re: EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers

#236

Post by zucker42 » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 9:05 AM UTC

Vespasian wrote: post #8

TheHeretic12 wrote: post #7

I recognize some of the names here. This will be a case to watch, which ever way it goes the constructions allowed here will percolate through the law for years to come. This case hinges on the exact wording of the law that authorizes the National Emergency Library. IIRC, it basically gives copyright impunity during a declared national emergency. As far as I am aware, the coronavirus declared national emergency is st…

What law does explicitly allow the NEL? If I recall correctly, the Internet Archive decided unilaterally that they would do this due to many libraries being closed. I (not in the US) do not remember any changes to the copyright act being passed to allow this. Edit to add: They offered this globally and therefore disregarded any laws in countries which have already settled this issue. (Hint: to my knowledge not in a w…

Which law specifically bans the NEL? The IA seems to be arguing copyright law doesn't because it's covered under fair use.

Re: EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers

#237

Post by account42 » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 9:08 AM UTC

ALittleLight wrote: post #177

basch wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what makes it not theft. Theft deprives the person of the original. If I have two books and you take one I have one book. If you buy one of my books and give it out, I did not have any of the books I had stolen from me.

Theft does deprive the victim of something. As I've written above, piracy is theft as it deprives the victim of potential sales.

Then you writing the book in the first place is theft as it deprives other authors of potential sales.

Re: EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers

#238

Post by bluesign » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 9:12 AM UTC

bawolff wrote: post #221

bluesign wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think another analogy can be better. Imagine I want to fly somewhere, plane is half empty, I am going there and sitting. Don’t have ticket. (Imagining no enforcement) Should I? Eventually this plane will fly there, my effect on cost is ignorable, I will be better, airline will not be worse.

I think this is an interesting analogy (maybe even better would be bus fare for a city bus). However marginal cost is not zero for the airline. Fuel costs money. There are limited seats on the plane. The marginal cost of copying a digital book is actually zero. However, even if marginal cost was 0 (lets say a movie theatre that is empty), it does somehow still seem wrong if its physical in a way i can't easily distin…

Problem is audience, if we had unlimited number audience, maybe marginal cost would be zero.

In current situation, cost of production (including labor), is shared with intended audience.

Imagine a edge case, I am writing a book to a very specific audience, lets say only 100 people would be interested.

I spent lets say 100 usd. So basically cost for each reader will be 1 usd.

Or maybe you developing a SaaS app, would you be ok if I pay only my marginal cost?

Even the marginal cost of production/copying is zero, actual cost is not. (edit: removed second marginal)

Re: EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers

#239

Post by account42 » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 9:15 AM UTC

gamblor956 wrote: post #116

pitaj wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I imagine there's been measurable harm to our society's cultural and scientific advancement because copyright forces us to recreate others' work instead of building off of it. Part of that harm is in creating monopolistic entities like Youtube because only big players can take on big media. If Youtube didn't have contentID they'd be sued into the ground by the publishers. > But what does that world look like? Quite…

Those monetization options pay less than you think they do for the vast majority of creators. The US copyright regime has been responsible for an amazing exponential growth in IP creation because creators are financially incentivized to create.

They pay less in a world where people are used to "buying" works rather than funding them. It's unreasonable to think that people would just stop spending their money if copyright was abolished.

Re: EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers

#240

Post by zucker42 » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 9:17 AM UTC

garmaine wrote: post #105

Well EFF won’t be getting any more donations from me, just like I cut off IA when they started this. Don’t ask for money to fight a legal battle where you are so obviously in the (legal) wrong.

The EFF could be just trying to limit the damage. Indeed, the article mainly focuses on CDL and not the unlimited lending of the NEL. Even a partial victory could protect the right to digitize old books not out of copyright.