Judge decides against Internet Archive • Hacker News Board

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#171

Post by drdaeman » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 1:56 AM UTC

teraflop wrote: post #169

encryptluks2 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

But if I purchase the paper book, there is - thankfully - no shrink-wrap licensing anywhere that tells me that I can or cannot lend it to anyone, yet I sure hope I can. Why IA can't?

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#172

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 1:56 AM UTC

Algemarin wrote: post #106

crazygringo wrote: post #80

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…

> 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. Try Library Genesis: https://libgen.is/

[deleted]

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#173

Post by cratermoon » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 1:59 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…

My library lends epubs through OverDrive, which puts Adobe's DRM on them. It works quite well with my Kobo Libra H2O. Checkouts of ebooks spiked during the pandemic, with 3 million in 2019, for a county with a total population of ~800K

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#174

Post by throwaway742 » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 2:00 AM UTC

unopened wrote: post #23

Aaron Swartz founding the Open Library with IA was a shining moment in web history. Sad to see giant corporations stomping on his vision of a web that offers free access to information for all.

I miss him. He really did his best to live up the the hacker ethos. Information wants to be free.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#175

Post by cratermoon » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 2:00 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.

Not copyright, but I'm pretty sure both Uber and AirBnB were out breaking laws willy-nilly. They called it "disruption".

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#176

Post by ipcress_file » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 2:02 AM UTC

tuckerconnelly wrote: post #24

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…

Do you disagree because of the Sabbath?

What irked me was that a lot of major corporations got together to subvert the law out of self-interest. If the people wanted to change the law, fine. Call a referendum.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#177

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 2:02 AM UTC

granzymes wrote: post #162

superkuh wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There may be a question of definition here. Do you mean that they have to lend it, but they cannot give it away?

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#178

Post by sparky_z » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 2:02 AM UTC

drdaeman wrote: post #171

teraflop wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

But if I purchase the paper book, there is - thankfully - no shrink-wrap licensing anywhere that tells me that I can or cannot lend it to anyone, yet I sure hope I can. Why IA can't?

They can lend the book, they just can't make a copy of it and lend the copy instead.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#179

Post by Zuiii » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 2:02 AM UTC

cultureswitch wrote: post #85

Zurrrrr wrote: post #32

Yet another example that piracy is not just a superior product or about not paying for content, but is an absolute core need.

In the face of senseless copyright law, avoiding to fund the organizations responsible is a moral imperative, and piracy is typically the way to do that.

> avoiding to fund the organizations responsible is a moral imperative

I never thought about it that way. I avoided getty and other stock media publishers out of principle. In their deranged quest to subjugate google, they made image search worse for me. I think it's about time I started applying this logic to other publishers as well. Copyright is completely out of control. There has to be accountability, even if it's insignificant and only on a personal level.

For any authors reading this: I intend to continue paying for books and will gladly do so but only if it's to you directly. Either self-publish or put a donation link on your site. If I'm interested in your book, I will search for your personal website prior to taking any action.

It's sad that it has to come down to this.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#180

Post by crazygringo » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 2:03 AM UTC

Spivak wrote: post #94

crazygringo wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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.

Thanks for pointing that out.

It makes me so sad -- it reminds me of Aereo, when the Supreme Court ruled against it in 2014 that it wasn't allowed to stream public broadcast TV over the internet, despite having a separate radio receiver for each viewer.

I can understand why Congress hasn't changed law to allow digital 1-for-1 reuse of previous physical/analog sources -- because there will be too much lobbying against it from corporations.

But it really seems like the Supreme Court had a chance to set new precedent in an area that hadn't been foreseen in law so really was undefined. And they chose corporations over consumers back in 2014, just like a federal judge did again now.

I can only imagine how much better if the Supreme Court had sided with consumers here. Congress could have overturned it through law, of course, but only in the face of massive voter dissatisfaction, and so I'm not sure they would have.