Is the Internet Archive itself going to need archived next?
Or is most or all of what it has already available in the pirate libraries?
Judge decides against Internet Archive
31–40 of 835 posts
Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive
#32Yet another example that piracy is not just a superior product or about not paying for content, but is an absolute core need.
Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive
#33Meanwhile I can go to any torrent site and download a couple hundred thousand books with ease.
Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive
#34I think most people here saw this coming. Unfortunately this isn't a question of whether the law is good, it's a question of whether IA broke the current laws we have. IA can and should lobby for copyright law to change. But breaking it before it has changed is risky and foolish, and does more harm than good.
> But breaking it before it has changed is risky and foolish, and does more harm than good. As I recall, this is precisely how British Columbia got Sunday shopping. Stores and shopping malls broke the law repeatedly. There were fines, but Sunday shopping was popular. Eventually, public pressure led governments to legalize Sunday opening. I didn't agree with it then and I don't fully agree with it now, but it can work…
Same in England. In Scotland there were no strong laws against Sunday shopping, apparently because nobody thought any shop would even think about opening. So when they did, and everyone went shopping, folks in England complained that they wanted what Scotland had.
Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive
#35Here was the EFF's statement on the case when they initially agreed to represent the Internet Archive: https://www.eff.org/cases/hachette-v-internet-archive IIRC this all came about because the IA decided to increase their lending beyond the limits of the licenses they had during covid, when more people were trying to use their services due to being stuck inside. Also of note is that the is only the district court. W…
> IIRC this all came about because the IA decided to increase their lending beyond the limits of the licenses they had during covid That's the excuse the publishers are pushing, but ultimately they disagree with, and have successfully argued in court it seems, against the entire principle. Ultimately, controlled digital lending should be as lawful as format shifting an album: this is format shifting from a physical b…
But in this case, it wasn't controlled, right? Even with DRM to "expire" the lent ebook after a certain amount of time, they still ended up distributing the books without restriction on availability.
I don't really care about the publishers, but I still wouldn't expect to seriously get away with arguing that I wasn't distributing copyrighted material if I started offering movies online for free in unlimited numbers... because it was just controlled lending since the movie files were set up to probably become unreadable in 3 weeks.
I'm sure they have competent lawyers that would've predicted an outcome like this, which makes the decision to do it even more baffling. Especially for an organization that ought to be conservative by design, considering they want to be a very long-term archive.
Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive
#36I think most people here saw this coming. Unfortunately this isn't a question of whether the law is good, it's a question of whether IA broke the current laws we have. IA can and should lobby for copyright law to change. But breaking it before it has changed is risky and foolish, and does more harm than good.
[deleted]
Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But breaking it before it has changed is risky and foolish, and does more harm than good. As I recall, this is precisely how British Columbia got Sunday shopping. Stores and shopping malls broke the law repeatedly. There were fines, but Sunday shopping was popular. Eventually, public pressure led governments to legalize Sunday opening. I didn't agree with it then and I don't fully agree with it now, but it can work…
Do you disagree because of the Sabbath?
Does it matter?
Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive
#38Wow, reading the article this seems like a clear cut case. Did IA really think they could win this? Edit: reading other sources, it seems like the crux of the idea is they would only lend out books where they had the same number of physical copies. I can see the reasoning for that, but it seems hard for fair use to get you there.
The original idea was to only lend out digital copies that are backed by a physical copy, so if challenged the Internet Archive could reasonably argue that they're protected under the same laws that physical libraries are, but when the pandemic kicked off IA launched an "emergency library" which waived the lending limits so any number of copies could be lent out regardless of how many physical copies they have. My as…
The case dealt with the former. This article is the judge's ruling, the National Emergency Library is not mentioned.
Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive
#39I think most people here saw this coming. Unfortunately this isn't a question of whether the law is good, it's a question of whether IA broke the current laws we have. IA can and should lobby for copyright law to change. But breaking it before it has changed is risky and foolish, and does more harm than good.
Yeah I have to agree copying entire works and lending them out is probably not the best idea. I wonder how Google got away with the same though.
> I wonder
There's an app for that.
Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive
#40Wow, reading the article this seems like a clear cut case. Did IA really think they could win this? Edit: reading other sources, it seems like the crux of the idea is they would only lend out books where they had the same number of physical copies. I can see the reasoning for that, but it seems hard for fair use to get you there.
During the pandemic, libraries closed and weren't lending out physical books at all. Did the emergency policy lend more digital books than the number of physical books locked in libraries? We'll probably never know, but I think that was the logic.
The scanned books are not so much fun to read, it is definitely less ergonomic than a Kindle. I would expect those using the program likely needed it.