301–310 of 835 posts
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.
I saw this coming. A few days ago, I read that IA's lawyers argued fair use in part based on "transforming" the content by making copies at scale. I was surprised & astonished that they'd try such sophistry, since a verbatim copy isn't transformative at all. I felt IA's lawyers were grasping at straws if they were making that fair use argument. Everyone would do better to lobby Congress to change the law to allow for…
> since a verbatim copy isn't transformative at all It's not a verbatim copy; the argument specifically involved converting content from one format (physical book) to another (ebook). > Everyone would do better to lobby Congress Good luck outspending the big publishers. How many people who work for a living does it take to match Disney's capacity to bribe Congresscritters?
Personal-use format shifting has sometimes been found to be fair use; but this is not that.
> How many people who work for a living does it take to match Disney’s capacity to bribe Congresscritters?
Don’t have to bribe if you have enough people convincingly committed to vote on the issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which might be legally sound (so says this court, we will presumably hear from others), but it’s logically balderdash. The copyright applies to the “intellectual property” content of the book, not its paper and binding. (I’m sure there are some esoteric exceptions to this because artists gonna art, but I feel confident that I’m representing the vast general case correctly.) If I rightly own a copy of a book, I don’t…
> a digital copy for myself "myself" being the operative word here. you can make 100 copies for yourself . what you can't do is make a copy that you give to someone else while simultaneously retaining access to the original (or another copy). the way libraries work is by relinquishing posession, which replication would circumvent.
I’m pretty sure I can do that.
> the way libraries work is by relinquishing posession
I almost included that I could shred my copy, keeping only the digital equivalent, and still retain the same rights to the work and lending it.
Any individual in IA’s position could do this without fear of legal scrutiny. An organization doing it is under scrutiny not because there’s actual, meaningful copyright violation happening but because they systemized a thing no reasonable person would object to individuals doing.
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.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s a terrible ruling. The first sale doctrine says the copy of the book you bought is yours. Lending the book is clearly not copying it. So, I guess you just don’t own anything you buy anymore? Like what if I want to lend a tool to someone, and the tool manufacturer wants to rent their tools out? Is that also illegal? What if the tool contains software? What if reasonable use of the tool requires accessing a prin…
Replying to your edit: The format shifting argument and first sale doctrine are discussed in the ruling. Notably in the section headed ‘3’ starting on page 28 - but also in other places.
Nor does IA’s promise not to lend simultaneously its
lawfully acquired print copies and its unauthorized reproductions
help its case. As an initial matter, IA has not kept its promise.
Although the Open Library’s print copies of the Works in Suit are
non-circulating, IA concedes that it has no way of verifying
whether Partner Libraries remove their physical copies from
circulation after partnering with IA. Pls.’ 56.1 ¶¶ 495-496. To
the contrary, IA knows that some Partner Libraries do not remove
the physical books from their shelves, and even if a Partner
Library puts a physical book into a non-circulating reference
collection, it could be read in the library while the ebook
equivalent is checked out. Id. ¶¶ 494, 497. IA also does not
inform Partner Libraries when an ebook in its collection is
checked out, and Partner Libraries do not tell IA when their
physical copies are circulating. Id. ¶ 498. IA admits it has
never taken action against a Partner Library that did not
suppress circulation properly. Id. ¶ 499.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Democracy will one day be seen as ridiculous as absolute monarchy is today.
Quite possibly, society doesn't sit still, but it's still an improvement from before in modern constitutional republic context. Beats going to war to change rulers.
I'm sure some think it is. I think dictating power based on war ability makes way more sense than everyone having a say simply by virtue of breathing.
Egalitarianism is not consistent with nature. But these things go in cycles, the flaws and contradictions will accumulate and the system will collapse eventually, like they all do.
Intellectual property is an unnatural, made up construct that will one day be seen as ridiculous as absolute monarchy is today. If we are going to allow it and penalize people who are doing natural human things like sharing with friends, there has to be a specific benefit to society in every instance. For example, pay taxes on copyrights and patents, increasing every year to reflect disturbance caused to society.
"Intellectual property is an unnatural, made up construct" So, what laws and constructs of civilized life are not an unnatural made up constructs? You seem to be suggesting there is some natural law that excludes things like intellectual property. Which natural laws, specifically, are you talking about?
If I have an idea, or a digital copy of something, you can also use that idea, or also get a digital copy, without depriving me of it. The only reason you can't use my idea or own a digital copy is because society decided that it would punish you for doing so – and that's unnatural in the sense that it doesn't follow from any inherent feature of reality.
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’s a terrible ruling. The first sale doctrine says the copy of the book you bought is yours. Lending the book is clearly not copying it. So, I guess you just don’t own anything you buy anymore? Like what if I want to lend a tool to someone, and the tool manufacturer wants to rent their tools out? Is that also illegal? What if the tool contains software? What if reasonable use of the tool requires accessing a prin…
I don't understand why users would voluntarily move away from piracy. I prefer "you can't do anything about it" to "please let us." Why the norm, base line expectation of the end user is not identity obfuscation and free access to information without hindrance I just don't get.
You could say the same about stealing physical books.