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

161–170 of 835 posts

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#161

Post by bdowling »

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.

> Don't many community/government libraries do this?

Those books are licensed to the libraries by the publishers. The introduction of the opinion here explains how it works:

> This dispute concerns the way libraries lend ebooks. Public and academic libraries in the United States spend billions of dollars each year obtaining print books and ebooks for their patrons to borrow for free. Pls.’ 56.1 ¶ 113. Libraries usually buy their print books from publishers or wholesalers. Id. ¶ 114. Copies of ebooks, however, are typically not bought but licensed to libraries from publishers through distributors called “aggregators.” Id. ¶ 117. The Publishers task aggregators with ensuring that a library lends its ebooks only to the library’s members. Id. ¶¶ 123, 125. The Publishers also require aggregators to employ approved “digital rights management” (“DRM”) software and other security measures to prevent unauthorized copying or distribution of ebook files. Id. ¶ 126.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.53..., page 3 (emphasis added).

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#162

Post by granzymes »

superkuh wrote: post #151
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…

The article doesn't seem to understand the issue.

Whether a copy of a work is fair use turns on, amongst other things, the effect of the copy on the potential market for the original. The article acknowledges this.

Controlled Digital Lending competes directly with the licensing scheme publishers have for library ebooks. The fair use argument was always doomed to fail.

The article then completely ignores the copyright argument and tries to equate CDL with libraries loaning out their physical copies. This is completely absurd, since libraries do not distribute duplicates of their physical books and so do not even enter the realm of copyright.

If libraries were systematically distributing duplicates of their existing books they would be sued for copyright infringement.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#163

Post by causality0 »

nonethewiser wrote: post #115
zenexer wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes: if it’s the sabbath, that’s an argument with which I’m familiar. My counter-argument is that I don’t want to be forced to practice someone else’s religion. If your religion already imposes those rules on its followers, why does it need a secular government to assist? If it’s not the sabbath, then I’m intrigued and want to learn more.

That isn’t forcing you to practice a religion.

It's literally forcing a tenet of a religion on everyone. It's like making it illegal to sell beef on Fridays during Lent or making alcohol illegal in an Islamic country.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#164

Post by yonran »

serf wrote: post #63
jijji wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

that still doesn't really explain Google's position.

Google never lent out entire copyrighted books without the publisher’s permission. Books.google.com consisted of 1) old public domain books that can be fully downloaded, 2) limited preview books that the publisher opted into putting online partially, and 3) snippet view books that only showed a sentence of context in response to search queries. The Authors’ Guild sued over 3), Google argued that they transformed the book into a search index, not a reading experience, and Google won.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#165

Post by teraflop »

crazygringo wrote: post #73
unopened wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The first-sale doctrine was also covered in the ruling. According to the letter of the law (17 USC § 109) it specifically only covers the distribution of existing authorized physical copies; it doesn't grant you permission to make a copy and lend that to a friend.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#166

Post by encryptluks2 »

bdowling wrote: post #161
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.

> Don't many community/government libraries do this? Those books are licensed to the libraries by the publishers. The introduction of the opinion here explains how it works: > This dispute concerns the way libraries lend ebooks. Public and academic libraries in the United States spend billions of dollars each year obtaining print books and ebooks for their patrons to borrow for free. Pls.’ 56.1 ¶ 113. Libraries usual…

So then IA just needs to have a free membership and implement the most basic DRM.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#168

Post by palata »

wmorgan wrote: post #129
nikau wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But breaking it before it has changed is risky and foolish, and does more harm than good. Exactly, that's only for companies like uber and airbnb who add real value to society, not some losers trying to make books accessible.

I don’t know about Airbnb. But you realize that before Uber existed, people ran businesses which were entirely, “you call us up, we’ll send you a car and take you where you want to go,” (And that driver was an independent contractor) I really don’t see the angle that Uber was doing something fundamentally new, except to the extent that they dramatically lowered the price and a lot more people used the service.

Pretty sure the parent was sarcasm.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#169

Post by teraflop »

encryptluks2 wrote: post #166
bdowling wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Don't many community/government libraries do this? Those books are licensed to the libraries by the publishers. The introduction of the opinion here explains how it works: > This dispute concerns the way libraries lend ebooks. Public and academic libraries in the United States spend billions of dollars each year obtaining print books and ebooks for their patrons to borrow for free. Pls.’ 56.1 ¶ 113. Libraries usual…

So then IA just needs to have a free membership and implement the most basic DRM.

Libraries' ebook lending programs are not legal because they require membership and use DRM. They're legal because they're authorized by the copyright owners, and those are the terms the copyright owners choose to impose (along with licensing fees).

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#170

Post by mmanfrin »

superkuh wrote: post #151
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…

> that they don’t deteriorate the way that physical books do

Wow, so they're arguing that the destruction of the sold good is implicit in the sale, and that preventing that is therefore illegal.

Post reply on HN