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

Judge decides against Internet Archive

file770.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 835 posts

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#51

Post by unopened »

bawolff wrote: post #9

Wow, 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.

If anything, their "first sale doctrine" route seems like a stronger argument than fair use here. When you purchase a copy of a work, you have the right to lend, sell, or share that copy without any additional payment or permission required to the creator. This is how libraries have operated for centuries.

I think what IA was doing, making sure they only lend out as many copies as they physically own, was clearly within the spirit of that doctrine. But in the digital era, lending anything over the web necessarily means making a copy of it somewhere along the way, which laws haven't adequately adapted to yet.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#52

Post by jijji »

trinsic2 wrote: post #4
Thorentis wrote: post #2

I 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.

how does a library get away with it.... they have to purchase the book first? is that how it works? how is internet archive different from a library, A lot of libraries are online right now and do the same thing.... It seems like a real harm if internet archive is forced offline because of a decision like this

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#53

Post by ncallaway »

jodrellblank wrote: post #44
14 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am from BC and the Sunday no shopping was a bit before my time but my dad talks about how stupid it was. If you had a problem and needed something in an emergency well too bad. Didn’t realize you were low on bread and forgot to get it Saturday oh well kids are not getting a sandwich in their lunches for Monday morning school. Like you say eventually people realized the fines were actually just the cost of doing bus…

I take it your dad want a low wage retail employee working Sundays? Not sacrificing everything to the grass good consumerism isn’t “stupid”. > “ Didn’t realize you were low on bread and forgot to get it Saturday oh well kids are not getting a sandwich in their lunches for Monday morning school. ” It is possible to make bread. And to eat other things. And to buy school lunches. And to borrow or trade food with neighbo…

What makes Sunday so special? Why not just pass worker protection laws that prevent people from overworking, rather than dictating a magical day that nobody can work.

It's a stupid idea and a dumb law that it only makes sense if your worker protection laws are too weak.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#54

Post by krapp »

jijji wrote: post #52
trinsic2 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

how does a library get away with it.... they have to purchase the book first? is that how it works? how is internet archive different from a library, A lot of libraries are online right now and do the same thing.... It seems like a real harm if internet archive is forced offline because of a decision like this

>how does a library get away with it.... they have to purchase the book first? is that how it works?

Yes. And they can lend those books to people due to the first-sale doctrine, which allows the legal owners of a work to lease, lend or sell it without the copyright owner's permission.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#55

Post by Sunspark »

egberts1 wrote: post #37
tuckerconnelly wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you disagree because of the Sabbath?

Does it matter?

For some it might. What if one is a practising member of a religion that has their Sabbath on Friday or Saturday? They are put at a competitive disadvantage if they are forced to be closed for 2 days instead of 1.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#56

Post by bobsmooth »

orra wrote: post #15
LordDragonfang wrote: post #3

Here 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…

>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.

Which is why it's really dumb that the IA pushed it blatantly violating copyright laws.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#57

Post by yamrzou »

userbinator wrote: post #31

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?

My experience has been that many of the Internet Archive books (especially rare/old ones) are not available in pirate libraries.

So this is sad news.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#58

Post by teraflop »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #38
jsheard wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The full ruling does mention it, albeit briefly:

> IA also argues that it made fair use of the Publishers’ copyrights during the National Emergency Library. The analysis above applies even more forcefully to the NEL, during which IA amplified its unauthorized lending of ebook versions of the Works in Suit by lifting the one-to-one owned-to-loaned ratio. IA’s defense of fair use with respect to the NEL therefore also fails.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#59

Post by dgacmu »

jodrellblank wrote: post #44
14 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am from BC and the Sunday no shopping was a bit before my time but my dad talks about how stupid it was. If you had a problem and needed something in an emergency well too bad. Didn’t realize you were low on bread and forgot to get it Saturday oh well kids are not getting a sandwich in their lunches for Monday morning school. Like you say eventually people realized the fines were actually just the cost of doing bus…

I take it your dad want a low wage retail employee working Sundays? Not sacrificing everything to the grass good consumerism isn’t “stupid”. > “ Didn’t realize you were low on bread and forgot to get it Saturday oh well kids are not getting a sandwich in their lunches for Monday morning school. ” It is possible to make bread. And to eat other things. And to buy school lunches. And to borrow or trade food with neighbo…

Not everyone cares about working Sunday. Why is it Sunday? Why not Saturday? Right - one set of religious beliefs that aren't universal. Why should the state be mandating this? Isn't it better to use state power to prevent employers from being able to coerce employees into working excessively or being unable to negotiate the days off that are important to them?

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#60

Post by idiotsecant »

alexfromapex wrote: post #7
Thorentis wrote: post #2

I 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.

The system shouldn't require lobbying to get results that benefit the greater good

that's like saying the washing machine should fold my socks after it's done washing them. That would be nice, but when you're running a large organization like IA you should be less concerned with how things should be and more concerned with how things are.
Post reply on HN