My thoughts in response to the lawsuit against the Internet Archive

Post by aahhahahaaa » Thu, Jul 23, 2020, 9:33 PM UTC

mrpopo wrote: post #78

aahhahahaaa wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's in their best interest to settle in a capitulating way that will hurt them but not kill them. This might have to include a public apology that admits they're in the wrong because publishers can be petty about this type of thing. It doesn't seem like they're willing to do that, and while I agree with their viewpoint and the troubling future with licensing... it may be the hill they die on and I'm not sure it's wo…

In the long term if they accept all kinds of trade offs I am afraid that they will become less and less relevant, and that's why they are taking a stance here.

Post by nitrogen » Thu, Jul 23, 2020, 9:39 PM UTC

aahhahahaaa wrote: post #61

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…

It's in their best interest to settle in a capitulating way that will hurt them but not kill them. This might have to include a public apology that admits they're in the wrong because publishers can be petty about this type of thing. It doesn't seem like they're willing to do that, and while I agree with their viewpoint and the troubling future with licensing... it may be the hill they die on and I'm not sure it's wo…

Post by kbenson » Thu, Jul 23, 2020, 9:48 PM UTC

remram wrote: post #48

vuln wrote: post #4

I have a monthly reoccurring donation in the amount of $10. If you haven’t donated please do. https://archive.org/donate/

I had a recurring donation until they decided to take a step that was obviously going to get them sued. I support IA's mission and products, but won't throw money in legal proceedings they set themselves to lose; I feel like this is better spent on EFF etc who are serious about it. I object to modern intellectual property and publishing practices as much as anyone, but what did they expect would happen when they drop…

Post by MayeulC » Thu, Jul 23, 2020, 9:52 PM UTC

neltnerb wrote: post #46

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's less debatable if the libraries they partner with have records showing that said books were on the stacks behind locked doors and that they used these records to change the number of each title that can be loaned out. But it is still a pretty big shift in "how to count" that maybe would have gone over better if discussed first. But let's be realistic, the publishers would have done the same thing. They do it ove…

Post by patmorgan23 » Thu, Jul 23, 2020, 9:52 PM UTC

phkahler wrote: post #68

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…

>> It's reasonably well established that when it comes to intellectual property, you can refuse to sell it, and only grant a limited license. With some small carve outs like the First Sale doctrine. Maybe pedantic but there is no "intellectual property" law in play here. Just plain old copyright law, under which they do fully own the books - as opposed to licensing them. What copyright law allows is everything that l…