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

#251

Post by dangerlibrary » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 3:15 PM UTC

kazinator wrote: post #91

dangerlibrary wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Violating copyright and stealing are fundamentally different things. If I steal your tv, you no longer have a TV. If I pirate a book, all existing copies of the book still exist. If you price a book above what I'm willing to pay for it, I'm never going to buy it. Ever. If my willingness to pay is "$0", then you can't even argue that the creator has lost revenue if I pirate it. I was never going to buy it - it's too e…

I think that the argument which you present works well for personal use: the book $0 monetary value to you and you don't intend to redistribute it. However, there are people who copy without authorization and make money from it. (For instance, Google: they collect money for YouTube Premium subscriptions, in exchange for which they let people watch all sorts of illegally reproduced material without commercial interrup…

My argument is really only about calculating economic damages from piracy, and how it is difficult without information about a pirate's willingess to pay. Even for personal use, if my willingness to pay is $50, but the price is $1000, and I pirate, that's a legitimate claim that piracy caused economic harm to the author. But, importantly, not $1000 of economic harm - just $50. I've deprived the author of the opportunity to price discriminate by putting the book on sale at some point in the future, or bulk discounting, or gathering data about the readership (to e.g. build an email list).

In the case you describe, there is a demonstrated willingness to pay $15, so you have enough information to calculate damages.

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

#252

Post by basch » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 3:20 PM UTC

ALittleLight wrote: post #233

salawat wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ther…

What everyone is saying is exactly the opposite of philosophical. This is an argument of semantics.

The existing supreme court rulings are crystal clear that they treat infringement as a different type of crime than theft, as they have different properties. No one is arguing with you about IF loss of sales can occur. They are telling you the legal definition of theft does not cover loss of potential. Hence the use of the word infringement. You are trying to redefine the word theft from its existing legal usage. Use a different word than theft.

Dowling v. United States (1985)

>interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985...

This isnt about what we believe. It's what the law says and how the courts have told us they choose to interpret it. It's (interpreting their interpretation) is not really a debate or an argument open to interpretation, as they were so clear there really arent multiple ways to read it. This isnt about any of us changing our minds with regard to what theft means, as its not an opinion.

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

#253

Post by mindslight » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 3:53 PM UTC

yyyk wrote: post #198

mindslight wrote: post #53

I'd love for the Internet Archive to prevail here, but honestly it was quite boneheaded to do this legal experiment under the same corporate umbrella as their archival work. At this point they should proceed with a damage mitigation strategy of selling off their servers and storage to a second entity at fair market value (maybe "Archive Cloud"), and renting continued access. This way even if the IA organization is ba…

I recall from the comments here and in Ars Technica that there was a significant debate whether IA could do that or whether this will be considered bankruptcy fraud or whether the publishers could still claw back the servers despite the separation. There's another last ditch option though - IIRC, IA has copies in US, Canada, Netherlands and Egypt. Let's say that some government where an IA server is hosted is convinc…

Well that's why I said "fair market value". It shouldn't be considered bankruptcy fraud if they were fairly compensated for the servers, as the monetary proceeds would still be in the estate. But perhaps that is the debate.

Nationalization seems heavyweight and unlikely, but maybe it could happen. The integrity problem could be solved with hashes, but it would take some work to define them to be useful.

BTW since they distributed copies of the Archive across jurisdictions, why the heck didn't they do the same with legal entities? Redundant copies aren't much of a protection if the organization can be coerced into modifying data, as western governments have been all too tempted to start doing.

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

#254

Post by mindslight » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 4:01 PM UTC

enriquto wrote: post #100

mindslight wrote: post #53

I'd love for the Internet Archive to prevail here, but honestly it was quite boneheaded to do this legal experiment under the same corporate umbrella as their archival work. At this point they should proceed with a damage mitigation strategy of selling off their servers and storage to a second entity at fair market value (maybe "Archive Cloud"), and renting continued access. This way even if the IA organization is ba…

> it was quite boneheaded to do this legal experiment under the same corporate umbrella as their archival work. I disagree. This is a wickedly good idea, and a very good hill to fight on. It is not a "legal experiment" but a major battle against evil people. Everybody loves the Internet Archive, it is our sacred castle. If a decisive battle is to be won against the publishing parasites, it may be likely this one, and…

What is the point of putting the Archive at risk though? The same battle could have been fought by a new entity that only digitally lent books, without putting the archives at risk. You seem to be implying that putting more at risk will make them fight harder, which seems ridiculous. What I see is them needlessly choosing this as a hill to die on.

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

#255

Post by kazinator » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 4:14 PM UTC

dangerlibrary wrote: post #251

kazinator wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that the argument which you present works well for personal use: the book $0 monetary value to you and you don't intend to redistribute it. However, there are people who copy without authorization and make money from it. (For instance, Google: they collect money for YouTube Premium subscriptions, in exchange for which they let people watch all sorts of illegally reproduced material without commercial interrup…

My argument is really only about calculating economic damages from piracy, and how it is difficult without information about a pirate's willingess to pay. Even for personal use, if my willingness to pay is $50, but the price is $1000, and I pirate, that's a legitimate claim that piracy caused economic harm to the author. But, importantly, not $1000 of economic harm - just $50. I've deprived the author of the opportun…

Suppose you are the copyright holder of a book, and are asking $1000. For years, there are no takers; you have no revenue. I come along and would like to read your book, but at most I'm willing to pay $10. I get a little idea: I advertise that I have this book for sale for $10 a copy, and start taking orders. I collect 99 paid orders. At that point, I have $990 of other people's money. I add $10 of my own to make $1000 and buy the book from you. Without your permission, I make 99 copies, and fill the orders.

Am I a pirate? Or a businessman who provided liquidity at a rationally determined market price, and enabled you to finally sell a copy and at least get a $1000?

Also, what amount did I demonstrate a willingness to pay? Certainly not $1000, right? It looks as if my willingness to pay was limited to the $10 of my own that I pitched in.

If I were to be sued, how should the damages be determined?

According to your "demonstrated willingness" concept for calculating damages, all 100 pirates demonstrated a willingness to pay $10, so the damages were $1000. But that's exactly what you got already. Everyone demonstrated willingness to pay $10, forked it over, and it was passed on to you.

So you see, this willingness to pay concept works very well with nonzero amounts too, in such a way that even pirates who charge money can come out smelling like roses.

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

#256

Post by enriquto » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 4:31 PM UTC

mindslight wrote: post #254

enriquto wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it was quite boneheaded to do this legal experiment under the same corporate umbrella as their archival work. I disagree. This is a wickedly good idea, and a very good hill to fight on. It is not a "legal experiment" but a major battle against evil people. Everybody loves the Internet Archive, it is our sacred castle. If a decisive battle is to be won against the publishing parasites, it may be likely this one, and…

What is the point of putting the Archive at risk though? The same battle could have been fought by a new entity that only digitally lent books, without putting the archives at risk. You seem to be implying that putting more at risk will make them fight harder, which seems ridiculous. What I see is them needlessly choosing this as a hill to die on.

Putting the glorious Archive "at risk" is equivalent to charging the enemy all together behind our king. Sure, a risky move, but undoubtedly very encouraging. The battle is not only legal, but mostly social and PR. A new entity, independent from the Archive, would receive few popular support, and if the book parasites killed it nobody would be really bothered. Yet, if they try to kill the Archive, that's a huge mess on their part that nobody can forget nor forgive.

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

#257

Post by yyyk » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 4:40 PM UTC

mindslight wrote: post #253

yyyk wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recall from the comments here and in Ars Technica that there was a significant debate whether IA could do that or whether this will be considered bankruptcy fraud or whether the publishers could still claw back the servers despite the separation. There's another last ditch option though - IIRC, IA has copies in US, Canada, Netherlands and Egypt. Let's say that some government where an IA server is hosted is convinc…

Well that's why I said "fair market value". It shouldn't be considered bankruptcy fraud if they were fairly compensated for the servers, as the monetary proceeds would still be in the estate. But perhaps that is the debate. Nationalization seems heavyweight and unlikely, but maybe it could happen. The integrity problem could be solved with hashes, but it would take some work to define them to be useful. BTW since the…

Well, the IA servers won't be offered for sale because IA decided to buy new servers, and similarly the buyer is in all likelihood really interested in the data.

Selling the data while claiming they 'merely' sell the servers is probably not fraud, but I don't think a judge is likely to look well on it. I can see the publishers arguing the data has monetary value and demanding restitution. Another thing is that IA relies on their designation as a library to avoid copyright legal issues, and the buyer will probably need the same designation (or at least to exist outside of EU/US). Still, with good will and good lawyers all this might be doable.

Nationalization is heavyweight and unlikely. If needed, someone will have to push for this behind the scenes. This is a big mess though, we may need every option we can get.

Why didn't IA think of separate legal entities in advance? Judging by the fact they got themselves into this, I suspect the foundation is not very well run...

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

#258

Post by adamsea » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 5:24 PM UTC

blacksmith_tb wrote: post #141

adamsea wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think if you talked to most authors they would have strong feelings that there need to be some legal means to ensure they are compensated for their work, and that someone else doesn't straight-up copy their novel, and then publish it and make a bundle. I do totally agree that copyright is messed up, big-time. To be honest I'm not sure that "free" sharing of knowledge really exists. Even in scientific communities I…

Isn't that only getting halfway there? No one could "make a bundle" from copying my work if everything could be copied freely (including me, without some other way to get paid). I agree that authors (and musicians, and artists, etc.) would like to be paid for their work, though currently it seems like publishing companies manage to channel most of that money into their own pockets instead (and the costs of 'publishin…

Not quite sure what you mean, but imho the key statement in what you said is this:

> I agree that authors (and musicians, and artists, etc.) would like to be paid for their work

: )

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

#259

Post by nitrogen » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 6:08 PM UTC

TouchyJoe wrote: post #227

nitrogen wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No good deed goes unpunished.

Why is knowledge artificially limited by all these paywalls and people holding literature and books hostage to their financial interest? What is better a world where a poor kid can read any book ever published or a world where you can only read the books that you can afford. Most technical books are expensive.

When I was a kid I depended on public libraries to learn about computers. I know college students who simply can't afford textbooks, so they pirate them. But that enabled me to find a career that lifted me out of the rural community I grew up in. Now I buy every book I read, on paper, and pay for expensive software.

Digital lending and the National Emergency Library would never have appealed to me. It doesn't reduce sales of books, because those who can buy, will. I'd much rather support the author and have a physical artifact in my hands than an inconvenient digital scan. But for anyone not in that position, the NEL could be a lifesaver to ride out the pandemic.

IA made the right call morally and ethically. It's only the parasites of society who would tear them down for helping disadvantaged people out during an unprecedented planet-wide crisis, because their actions help the disadvantaged without harming the market potential of authors.

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

#260

Post by Shared404 » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 7:15 PM UTC

account42 wrote: post #232

lend000 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If I'm understanding correctly, they are saying that people shouldn't be able to take over a copyrighted work during the lifetime of the original creator.

I would think this would make sense in some cases, like writing a story, and less sense in some others (software source code).