Judge decides against Internet Archive • Hacker News Board

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#151

Post by superkuh » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 1:36 AM UTC

allturtles wrote: post #91

A lot of people in these comments still seem confused about what has happened here. This ruling is not about the emergency library at all. It's a ruling that controlled digital lending (one physical copy backing each digital copy lent out) is illegal.

https://www.techdirt.com/2023/03/22/book-publishers-wont-sto... is a good overview (from a day or two before the judgement).

>Every part of that has been deemed legal. Copyright law already has first sale rights, written directly into the law and allow for the lending or reselling of copyright-covered works without a license or permission. Similarly libraries are given explicit rights to make copies, so long as those collections are made available to the public. On top of that, courts have determined, multiple times, that book scanning itself is fair use for libraries.

>So, literally each separate component of what is happening with Controlled Digital Lending has already been deemed to be legal and exactly what we expect libraries to do.

>To counter this, publishers (and their supporters, which unfortunately include some authors) argue that (1) this interferes with the market for licensed ebooks, and (2) that there is a real difference in lending out the digital scans: that they don’t deteriorate the way that physical books do.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#152

Post by FpUser » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 1:36 AM UTC

nonethewiser wrote: post #113

FpUser wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"I didn't agree with it then and I don't fully agree with it now, but it can work." I actually do agree with it. Same reason as jury nullification. If enough people (jury members in this case) believe that the law / particular application is unjust then fuck it. In nullification the government must give in. I do not see why it should be any different in general. The key here should be what constitutes "enough"

This has a name. Mob rule.

Alternatively we can call it restraining our masters when they run amok. They're the same mob that we are. If the law goes against common sense / justice then the fuck with it. Why should we suffer a consequence of some lunatic with damaged brain.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#153

Post by superkuh » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 1:37 AM UTC

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.

https://www.techdirt.com/2023/03/22/book-publishers-wont-sto...

>Every part of that has been deemed legal. Copyright law already has first sale rights, written directly into the law and allow for the lending or reselling of copyright-covered works without a license or permission. Similarly libraries are given explicit rights to make copies, so long as those collections are made available to the public. On top of that, courts have determined, multiple times, that book scanning itself is fair use for libraries.

>So, literally each separate component of what is happening with Controlled Digital Lending has already been deemed to be legal and exactly what we expect libraries to do.

>To counter this, publishers (and their supporters, which unfortunately include some authors) argue that (1) this interferes with the market for licensed ebooks, and (2) that there is a real difference in lending out the digital scans: that they don’t deteriorate the way that physical books do.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#154

Post by unopened » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 1:37 AM UTC

Aeolun wrote: post #127

Spivak wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The judge disagreed with that too. Companies have tried and failed to set up a streaming service backed by physical copies and they were struck down so this really didn’t have any chance either.

I don’t understand the reasoning there though. Like, I can get on board with sayibg fair-use is silly, but lending a book that I own —either digitally or physically— should be protected.

The concept of "owning" a book digitally is already on shaky ground, since most large publishers only sell licenses for accessing ebooks. You're not actually purchasing a copy in perpetuity like a physical book. Naturally these licenses are entirely on the publishers' terms.

In practice this means publishers can revoke access licenses for all sorts of arbitrary reasons, alter the content of ebooks already purchased, or plenty of other shady practices, with little recourse available to the reader.

Plus it means they can force libraries to keep paying repeated, marked-up licensing fees for the privilege of lending out ebooks. Much better deal for the publishers than the physical library lending model!

I don't blame IA for trying to find a way to liberate library lending from that racket.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#155

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 1:37 AM UTC

warent wrote: post #143

allturtles wrote: post #91

A lot of people in these comments still seem confused about what has happened here. This ruling is not about the emergency library at all. It's a ruling that controlled digital lending (one physical copy backing each digital copy lent out) is illegal.

That seems horrendous. Don't many community/government libraries do this? Seems like a huge blow to freedom of information and sharing.

[deleted]

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#156

Post by jhbadger » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 1:38 AM UTC

dmix wrote: post #150

warent wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems horrendous. Don't many community/government libraries do this? Seems like a huge blow to freedom of information and sharing.

Is this just ebook lending? Is that popular among local libraries? I thought Kindle/Nook/Apple books/etc completely dominated that market. Reading PDFs on computers/tablets for long form stuff never made much sense to me. I'm curious if local libraries get much traction from their digital libraries. I could see audiobooks getting locked down being a big hit though. Audible has a monopoly on that harder than ebooks ev…

It's very popular among local libraries (at least in the US and UK) -- Libby/Overdrive being the main player, followed by Hoopla.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#157

Post by teraflop » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 1:39 AM UTC

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #88

krapp wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

this definition also seems to fit what libraries were doing, lending out their copy, sometimes digitally, sometimes in person, always only 1 copy at a time the judge said the conversion to digital was not transformative, so I don't see why it should constitute another work versus the original one

Legally speaking, what the Internet Archive was doing is exactly what copyright law prohibits: making and distributing an unauthorized copy of the book.

The first sale doctrine (which libraries depend on) says you're allowed to to sell, rent out or give away your own physical property, even if that property happens to be an embodiment of a copyrighted work. It doesn't say anything about it being legal to make another copy of a work, and then distribute it while you keep the original one for yourself.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#158

Post by em-bee » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 1:41 AM UTC

d0gsg0w00f wrote: post #134

brewdad wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody wants to go to work on Monday. Let’s shut everything down on Mondays. :)

Asian restaurants around me that are open Sunday just close on Monday or Tuesday. Very common at least in Atlanta.

very common in europe too. because more people go out to eat on sundays than on mondays

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#159

Post by em-bee » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 1:42 AM UTC

ncallaway wrote: post #53

jodrellblank wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

children don't go to school on sunday, having the right to take sunday off instead of some other weekday is a benefit for families.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#160

Post by ipcress_file » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 1:42 AM UTC

SideQuark wrote: post #146

ipcress_file wrote: post #18

Earlier 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…

Listing a place a law was broken to advocate for repeating it is not good advice. The proper metric is to see how many times laws are broken and how often that works out for the lawbreaker. IA is learning the difference, unfortunately.

I didn't advocate for breaking the law. I said I disagreed with the whole thing. I was pointing out that the approach had worked in the past, because the previous poster had argued that "breaking [the law] before it has changed is risky and foolish, and does more harm than good."