Judge decides against Internet Archive • Hacker News Board

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#271

Post by sp332 » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 3:36 AM UTC

sinuhe69 wrote: post #264

I thought the IA only archives websites and digital contents, which are in danger of being lost? eBooks are seldom the only form of publishing, thus I believe there is always at least an archive copy of them. Making them accessible for all is clearly very controversial.

IA has tons of stuff. Scroll down past the Wayback search on https://archive.org/ to the more advanced search and you can see more categories. You can play a lot of the audio, video, and even some software right in the browser. Their physical archive is also huge. Here are some pictures from 2012 https://scldigital.wordpress.com/internet-archive-gallery/

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#272

Post by benatkin » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 3:38 AM UTC

nighthawk454 wrote: post #243

jkdufair wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t disagree with the ruling. IA is not lending their copy that they purchased. They are lending a copy of their copy. While that copy is lent out, they are still free to, I.e. read the copy in their possession.

That’s technically true. But frankly it seems like such people have a giant stick up their ass. The digital version would be infinitely more accessible, while still maintaining effectively 1-1 access restrictions. I’m not even sure if they’re _is_ a physical IA library one could go to. For all I know they’re in a vault somewhere. Even the USD isn’t backed 1-1 with physical tokens. It seems patently ridiculous that bo…

It's based on refusing to adapt to a society with digital objects.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#273

Post by gamblor956 » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 3:39 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.

This is basically the same way that courts have always ruled on this point.

Redbox tried this theory several years ago when they were trying to launch their film streaming service, and failed for the same reasons.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#274

Post by zmmmmm » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 3:42 AM UTC

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…

seems to me that once something is out of print for a lengthy period of time, publishers shouldn't be able to make the fair use argument that electronic copies interfere with the commercial market for the book.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#275

Post by hackernewds » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 3:45 AM UTC

allturtles wrote: post #210

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…

Yes, IA has followed a similar tragic arc as Google Books, another martyr to the dream of a truly 21st century library. What's most tragic about it to me is that that vast majority of works affected are "zombie" copyright works that have no actual commercial value. Someone, somewhere holds the copyright, but no one has sold a copy in years or decades. For the sake of protecting the tiny sliver of commercially valuabl…

What happened to Google Books?

I would argue the artist still deserves to retain value, regardless of the size of it unless they give it up. If it expires, sure it's public domain.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#276

Post by toast0 » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 3:46 AM UTC

musicale wrote: post #207

granzymes wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What IA is doing is removing the physical copy from circulation, making a digital copy, and lending out the digital copy. I don't see the argument that this is "distribution" any more than regular (obnoxious) ebook lending is.

Regular (obnoxious) ebook lending is done under license of the publisher, presumably with the approval of the rightsholders. It may or may not be distribution, but it's approved, so it's ok.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#277

Post by hackernewds » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 3:46 AM UTC

xvector wrote: post #194

ZunarJ5 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even better: https://annas-archive.org/

This is the one use case where the blockchain/web3 is useful. Give me a decentralized library on the blockchain, where no government can take it down by merely discovering the host's identity and location. Invulnerable to rubber-hose attacks and censorship (which IPFS is still vulnerable to.)

Result will be rampant piracy and theft of creator works (which posters seem to be a proponent of here)

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#278

Post by lolbert3 » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 3:49 AM UTC

endisneigh wrote: post #239

musicale wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What IA is doing is removing the physical copy from circulation, making a digital copy, and lending out the digital copy. I don't see the argument that this is "distribution" any more than regular (obnoxious) ebook lending is.

What’s stopping IA from using the physical book while it is simultaneously lending out a copy? Nothing. Which is why losing was inevitable.

[dead]

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#279

Post by hackernewds » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 3:49 AM UTC

endisneigh wrote: post #258

benatkin wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're saying something similar to "you wouldn't download a car". It's applying without considering it. The digital book isn't being kept at the old location because there is no digital book in the physical book. It's the only way to transfer a single copy of a book without destroying the physical copy. Judges should consider stuff like this and it's a disappointing ruling. But go on...

Exactly. And there lies the issue. Internet archive has the book and lends the book simultaneously. Hence why they lost.

This makes logical sense. Pay for one, lend one.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#280

Post by alwayslikethis » Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 3:49 AM UTC

pdar4123 wrote: post #205

xvector wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the one use case where the blockchain/web3 is useful. Give me a decentralized library on the blockchain, where no government can take it down by merely discovering the host's identity and location. Invulnerable to rubber-hose attacks and censorship (which IPFS is still vulnerable to.)

Why do u need a blockchain? Why not just torrents for sharing.

IPFS has some theoretical merits, such as not relying on discrete trackers (which is a point of failure), and at present we have a bunch of mirrors that speeds it up. However, BitTorrent has a better track record regarding resilience against interference (from copyright mafia) or other bad actors. IPFS has so far not openly supported this usage.