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

71–80 of 835 posts

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#71

Post by boomboomsubban »

teraflop wrote: post #58
boomboomsubban wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

My mistake, though that line emphasizes that the NEL is barely relevant to the decision.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#73

Post by crazygringo »

unopened wrote: post #51
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 wit…

Exactly. I'm not a lawyer but I'm baffled they went the fair use route -- fair use has nothing to do with it.

The argument that this is no different from lending temporarily to a friend seems to be much more reasonable. Especially since no money is changing hands.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#74

Post by iudqnolq »

simonh wrote: post #16
kybernetikos wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ahh, you're right. They copied the full books, but they don't let the public view more than snippets unless they have rights to do so. That must be the 'transformative use'.

I think you are allowed to duplicate short extracts of works as part of fair use.

It's a four factor test (but the second factor rarely counts).

    the purpose and character of your use

    the nature of the copyrighted work

    the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and

    the effect of the use upon the potential market.
The court found that Google copied the entirety of the work into their search index, but that this (taking into account the strict result snippet restrictions) didn't effect the market because no one would decide they didn't need the book now they had the snippet.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#75

Post by kevviiinn »

Sunspark wrote: post #55
egberts1 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That argument is just absurd, why should that matter

Is it the responsibility of the government to protect the profit opportunities of some specific people who choose to be a certain religion?

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#76

Post by ocdtrekkie »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #47
cmiles74 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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 most checked out book, The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe , had ~850 check outs. I think it's safe to assume they didn't come close to the amount of physical books locked in libraries. Not that it's very important, the pandemic policy is barely ment…

This is a justification that makes sense in theory, but the Internet Archive doesn't own those books and can't track them. If they had asked libraries to explicitly send parts of their collection to the IA for this, that might've held some weight.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#77

Post by ryandrake »

majormajor wrote: post #42
bcrosby95 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This made me chuckle pretty hard. When lobbying enters the picture there's only a small, selective group of people that are going to constitute the greater good.

I think you're referring to financial aspects of today's lobbying alone, but I think it's impossible to suggest you could have any sort of consideration of the greater good without taking into account different people's view on what that is, which means them trying to persuade you of it, which is the exact definition of lobbying.

It doesn't matter what "different people's view" is. With corporations lobbying, there is no greater good, only greater wallet.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#78

Post by cultureswitch »

RedCondor wrote: post #62
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.

It's a little amusing to compare the reactions here to Internet Archive breaking the law ("The law is the law…") to Uber/AirBnB breaking the law ("Newcomers challenging the system! Ambitious, bold disruption!").

To me those are similar. Uber is addressing the universally reviled criminal organisation slash medieval guild that taxis are in every single city they operate. AirBnB really never was illegal to begin with. Internet Archive is breaking copyright law which needs a huge reform.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#79

Post by bentley »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #70
CaptainNegative wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Precedent for federal cases is typically first set at the appellate level. If you're working your activism through the courts, you usually have to lose before you can win.

There is a less than zero percent chance this Supreme Court decides in favor of the Internet Archive, if they ever even cared to hear the case.

“This” Supreme Court? As opposed to any other Supreme Court?

Which Supreme Courts have been friendly to fair use and opposed copyright expansionist arguments?

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#80

Post by crazygringo »

Yikes. I borrow books constantly from the IA that are hard/impossible to find elsewhere because they've gone out of print. A lot of academic-ish non-fiction from the 1960s-1980s, stuff you can only otherwise get through inter-library loan that takes weeks rather than seconds.

Any idea if this means IA has to shut down lending by when? Tomorrow? Next month?

Any chances for appeal here? Or any chance they relocate the books division to another country or something?

It's just so sad if something so valuable is forced to go "poof". A real loss.

Post reply on HN