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

111–120 of 242 posts

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

#111

Post by supermatt »

wittyreference wrote: post #109
rocqua wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thing is, the IA did not make infinite copies and distribute them freely. They specifically made limited copies and for every copy the lent out, they took a physical copy out of circulation.

I don't see anything in IA's FAQ or elsewhere that they limited digital lending to physical copies. I read that they only lent ebooks they had physical possession /of/, but that there was no limit to how many such copies they lent out (i.e., they had one physical copy of Mark Twain, allowed an unlimited number of people to digitally borrow Mark Twain for up to two weeks). If I'm mistaken, I'd appreciate a link that e…

They say in the article that they used controlled digital lending, where they only circulate the EXACT number of copies they (and partner libraries) physically own and are not currently lent.

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

#112

Post by aahhahahaaa »

nitrogen wrote: post #83
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…

I'm astonished and dismayed by all the comments calling for capitulation. It's very clear that the publishers in this case are bullies, plain and simple. You don't kneel to bullies if you want them to stop, you fight back. Not to do so leads to tyranny and feudalism, where the whims of the large become the law.

Right but we're operating in the reality of the American court system. Idealistically I agree with you, but it's not pragmatic — the law is very obviously in the publisher's favor (they whimmed it to their side years ago).

At the end of the day I think this will be a battle over whether or not the Internet Archive can continue to exist... and it's incredibly important for them to live to fight another day.

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

#113

Post by kd5bjo »

gowld wrote: post #79
phkahler wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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…

Copyright law is intellectual property law. It's the only kind explicitly mentioned in the US Constitution. Regular copyright law says that if you _buy_ a book, digital or not, you can resell it. If you license a book, digital or not , you can't except as specified in the license. IA's point is that digital books (which are many or most books nowadats) aren't sold; instead, they are licensed. https://www.justice.gov/…

> It’s the only kind explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.

Patents are explicitly covered there, too; from Art 1, §8:

"[the United States Congress shall have power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

(via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause )

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

#114

Post by aahhahahaaa »

pyk wrote: post #102
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…

Any way to refocus on the bully publishers? Boycott these folks (Hachette, Harpercollins, Wiley, and Penguin Random House) so they respect the public service IA is giving to millions of people - beyond just the content in question. Actions can speak wonders.

I think it's hard because the bullying has been done and the law is already in their favor. This isn't a grey area case of "is it legal or not" it's a case where the IA broke the already established rules. They're fighting upstream.

Despite its importance I don't think the Internet Archive is a common household name on the level of Wikipedia and I don't think any sort of boycott would have the legs (I would love to be wrong about this).

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

#115

Post by quazar »

nine_k wrote: post #98
nitrogen wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm astonished and dismayed by all the comments calling for capitulation. It's very clear that the publishers in this case are bullies, plain and simple. You don't kneel to bullies if you want them to stop, you fight back. Not to do so leads to tyranny and feudalism, where the whims of the large become the law.

I think this does not mesh well with their mission. They are the Internet Archive , the archive of freely (in the past) available stuff that can't be found anywhere else, in most cases. This is much more fragile than old books which likely exists in thousands of copies anyway. I do not admire their stance, and am unhappy that they are recklessly jeopardizing their unique thing to make a case where they have a very bi…

> The Internet Archive is an American digital library with the stated mission of "universal access to all knowledge."

First sentence of the Wikipedia article.

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

#116

Post by supermatt »

Spivak wrote: post #69
thatcat wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I mean you could try but you still wouldn't be allowed to duplicate the work. So you would only be allowed to sell your purchased version if you deleted any copy you had.

That’s what DRM is supposedly for...

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

#118

Post by horsawlarway »

nine_k wrote: post #98
nitrogen wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm astonished and dismayed by all the comments calling for capitulation. It's very clear that the publishers in this case are bullies, plain and simple. You don't kneel to bullies if you want them to stop, you fight back. Not to do so leads to tyranny and feudalism, where the whims of the large become the law.

I think this does not mesh well with their mission. They are the Internet Archive , the archive of freely (in the past) available stuff that can't be found anywhere else, in most cases. This is much more fragile than old books which likely exists in thousands of copies anyway. I do not admire their stance, and am unhappy that they are recklessly jeopardizing their unique thing to make a case where they have a very bi…

I understand you, and vehemently disagree.

There is a real and serious risk of having ALL published material eventually fall under "licensed use" instead of ownership.

We're rapidly tipping towards a society where you pay rent to license everything, and own nothing.

In the short term, I find this model abusive. In the long I think it guarantees we will have a competitive disadvantage against countries that don't enforce this style of licensing.

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

#119

Post by esrauch »

londons_explore wrote: post #95
quercusgrisea wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But usually a van physically transports the book to the lendee... I think the debate will be if making a digital copy and locking the original book in a safe is equivalent, and if I were a judge, I would say "no", because to say otherwise significantly weakens copyright in so many other ways.

It seems like "faster vans" and "more effective nagging people to immediately return books they have already finished" would also weaken copyright under that line of argument; both allow you to loan the same copy to more people in sequence.

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

#120

Post by kbenson »

dfabulich wrote: post #88
kbenson wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but what did they expect would happen when they dropped their entire legal justification? Specifically what legal justification to you think they dropped that they followed previously?

They were doing controlled digital lending (CDL) with a strict owned-to-loaned ratio. Then, during the emergency, they waived all waitlists and limits, allowing an unlimited number of loans for a single owned copy. They no longer could claim that they were still engaged in CDL, so there was no legal justification to make all of those copies.

Doesn't the article say that's not what they did, instead lending out copies that were sitting at partner libraries that weren't being lended out because they were closed? If that's the case, we're they not still lending out with each digital copy corresponding to a digital copy?
Post reply on HN