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

My thoughts in response to the lawsuit against the Internet Archive

blog.archive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 242 posts

Re: My thoughts in response to the lawsuit against the Internet Archive

#51

Post by joshuahaglund »

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #21
joshuahaglund wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using controlled digital lending, yes. Why not? The libraries hold licenses to lend this media in physical format but were temporarily shifting to lending using controlled digital lending. They didn't just give away unencrypted copies to be pirated. They did what libraries do, lend media.

They lent unlimited copies. The limit is very very key to being covered under CDL.

Have you ever borrowed a digital book? It's for a limited period of time usually a couple weeks, in an app of some sort. That's what they did, that's CDL.

They temporarily removed waitlists which did allow more people to borrow a title than they had licenses, as physical libraries closed and as schools tried to get online. It was an unprecedented time. They had the support of major libraries. They stopped early when they got sued.

The lawsuit should be dropped.

Re: My thoughts in response to the lawsuit against the Internet Archive

#52

Post by quercusgrisea »

duxup wrote: post #27
pwinnski wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to this post, they did not break the 1:1 ratio of physical to digital books, but expanded the pool of physical books to include those unlent at libraries across the country. That is certainly a debatable point, though. More to the point, the lawsuits are in effect and moving forward now, long after the NEL has ceased operations. They are directed at the CDL now.

It seems strange to loan a digital copy of ... someone else's book. As for the lawsuit going on after they stopped lending, well yeah the legal matter wasn't settled, so it can go on.

Why? A library lending someone a book belonging to a partner library because that library is not easily accessible to the lendee is common practice.

Re: My thoughts in response to the lawsuit against the Internet Archive

#53

Post by IggleSniggle »

an_opabinia wrote: post #26
wnevets wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Services like Steam, GOG, Epic et al have massively reduced game piracy. This has absolutely been the case for me. I went from pirating everything to having so many games that I've paid for but haven't played yet. I'm sure part of it is being older with more disposable income and less free time but its just so much easier to buy the game on steam.

You'd never know the difference between reducing game piracy and making games that cannot be pirated.

I don't know about others, but I almost exclusively play single-player local-only games these days. I don't have time for multiplayer games.

Re: My thoughts in response to the lawsuit against the Internet Archive

#54

Post by thatcat »

dmurray wrote: post #50

> With this suit, the publishers are saying that in the digital world, we cannot buy books anymore, we can only license and on their terms; we can only preserve in ways for which they have granted explicit permission, and for only as long as they grant permission; and we cannot lend what we have paid for because we do not own it. This is not a rule of law, this is the rule by license. This does not make sense. If tha…

The First Sale doctrine can be applied to the digital domain.

Re: My thoughts in response to the lawsuit against the Internet Archive

#55

Post by roblabla »

jjcon wrote: post #39
loeg wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the idea is: the library has 5 physical copies. IA loans 5 digital copies while the physical ones are locked up. The number of library copies of the work in circulation is net zero.

HN: Pirating a movie isn’t the same as stealing it HN now: Digital lending should be treated the same as physical lending

Both can be correct at the same time. Pirating a movie is copyright infringement, not stealing. Digital lending is currently legally gray-zone, but the pragmatic end-game for lenders is to make it so a physical book can be digitally lent so long as the physical book is unused during the lending period. This is because it can easily be shown that the publisher doesn't incur damages, since the same amount of books are on the market at any given time.

Re: My thoughts in response to the lawsuit against the Internet Archive

#56

Post by thatcat »

duxup wrote: post #27
pwinnski wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to this post, they did not break the 1:1 ratio of physical to digital books, but expanded the pool of physical books to include those unlent at libraries across the country. That is certainly a debatable point, though. More to the point, the lawsuits are in effect and moving forward now, long after the NEL has ceased operations. They are directed at the CDL now.

It seems strange to loan a digital copy of ... someone else's book. As for the lawsuit going on after they stopped lending, well yeah the legal matter wasn't settled, so it can go on.

Not really. As long as they are documented to be not in use, then the first party can lend them to whoever, and they can lend to whoever.. and so on as long as the chain links back to a real book paid for then it makes perfect technical sense.

Re: My thoughts in response to the lawsuit against the Internet Archive

#57

Post by zozbot234 »

pwinnski wrote: post #23
bmarquez wrote: post #20

I'm confused by this article. As I remember Archive.org created a "National Emergency Library" basically breaking the 1:1 ratio of physical to digital books in Controlled Digital Lending, and allowing unrestricted use. The lawsuits were brought on June 1st, while the NEL was active. Are these lawsuits based on the CDL (which I personally support) or based on the NEL (which could be considered piracy)?

According to this post, they did not break the 1:1 ratio of physical to digital books, but expanded the pool of physical books to include those unlent at libraries across the country. That is certainly a debatable point, though. More to the point, the lawsuits are in effect and moving forward now, long after the NEL has ceased operations. They are directed at the CDL now.

> According to this post, they did not break the 1:1 ratio of physical to digital books, but expanded the pool of physical books to include those unlent at libraries across the country.

AIUI in all previous communications about the NEL, they claimed they were doing the former, i.e. "effectively" removing all limits to legitimate lending, regardless of the previous 1:1 ratio. But there was plenty of speculation that the real mechanism behind the NEL was the latter, i.e. partnering with outside libraries to expand the physical holdings they could lend out via CDL.

Re: My thoughts in response to the lawsuit against the Internet Archive

#58

Post by gorbachev »

"With this suit, the publishers are saying that in the digital world, we cannot buy books anymore, we can only license and on their terms;"

And this is why I still prefer physical media. I own it and I can do whatever the hell I please with it. Not so with almost every digital media platform I've seen.

Well, other than platforms built on piracy.

Re: My thoughts in response to the lawsuit against the Internet Archive

#59

Post by thatcat »

patrickhogan1 wrote: post #25

I love the IA. But it is so clear the argument made is written by a lawyer after the fact. Reading between the lines of the lawyer speak: 1. The books were not locked up and out of the reach of students. Students were able to take their books home. Yes class was over Zoom. Teaching from the same books previously used in the physical classroom. College classes have done this for decades using physical books for online…

>Library cards are limited to city residents. For example, think of a city with 1M residents. That puts a cap on the license cost.

So you're saying that the amount libraries pay for a book is proportional to the number of residents in that city?

Re: My thoughts in response to the lawsuit against the Internet Archive

#60

Post by mytailorisrich »

dmurray wrote: post #50

> With this suit, the publishers are saying that in the digital world, we cannot buy books anymore, we can only license and on their terms; we can only preserve in ways for which they have granted explicit permission, and for only as long as they grant permission; and we cannot lend what we have paid for because we do not own it. This is not a rule of law, this is the rule by license. This does not make sense. If tha…

I would agree. No lawyer at all, just my 2c:

When I buy a book, I buy the physical item but I only buy a license for its content. I own the book but I do not own the content. That also makes it difficult to make copies.

In the digital world world there are not longer physical artifacts, only content and making copies is trivial. In fact, 'buying' digital content involves making a digital copy, not transferring ownership of a single physical item.

My understanding is that these differences result in different areas of copyright law being exercised and that the First Sale Doctrine applies to physical items (and it requires ownership of the copy).

Post reply on HN