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

651–660 of 835 posts

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#651

Post by dahart »

grey413 wrote: post #224
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.

If the IA is creating their own digital copies of physical books, it could be argued that that the IA is creating and distributing derivative works. I'm not certain, but my impression is that derivative works have little in the way of legal protection.

Changing formats without changing content is not a derivative work; it’s just a copyright violation. A derivative work must “add new original copyrightable authorship to that work.” https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#652

Post by xhkkffbf »

dahart wrote: post #614
uda wrote: post #408

Initially I'm enraged against the publishers, the judge and the system in general as many of you, but they are not the issue, while I can't talk on behalf of IA, I don't see this as a fight against the publishers, but a fight against broken business models flourishing because and protected by broken laws meant to protect earlier broken business models The current law is broken, we know that, but most of us don't gras…

> The current law is broken I think many agree that copyright needs to be shortened, but what does “broken” mean, exactly? I have good feelings for the Internet Archive, but in this case it’s about a handful of books that are being copied and distributed a mere 5 years after initial publication, which I think a lot of people who want copyright shortened would still agree is quite a bit too short. Books frequently get…

Yes. This would really hurt the ability for authors to make a living if everyone could do what the IA claims the right to do. It just won't work for sales to be cut off after a few physical copies by digital copies everywhere.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#653

Post by ghaff »

ncphil wrote: post #587
maxwell wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Odd to open asking what actions Americans can take, and then closing with a bizarre appeal to a noble wealth hoarder. What can we do? Uncap the House. Repeal the Reapportionment Act of 1929. The billionaires easily bribe 435 reps, several thousand would be harder. And in line with historical representation. https://www.reddit.com/r/uncapthehouse

Something many have advocated for decades. But keep in mind that there are tens of thousands of elected offices in the US, most of them nonpartisan, local positions that cost little to contest: yet it's incredibly hard to find people willing to run. Voter apathy is a huge problem here, in part due to historic voter suppression efforts baked into the system, but the dearth of candidates willing to participate in elect…

Many of those local or state offices also pay little to nothing. A state rep in NH gets paid $200 for a two-year term based on an 1899 law.

That's something of an outlier but $25-50K is common.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#654

Post by krapp »

frankfrankfrank wrote: post #509
bachmeier wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Judges are there to enforce the law, not to make it. That's not the right characterization of the argument. Judges are there to tell legislators that they can't make certain laws. The abortion dispute is not about judges making abortion legal, it's about judges telling politicians that they cannot make abortion illegal. Without that, politicians would literally have the ability to do anything they want.

I find it both shocking and terrifying that people lack the most fundamental understanding of how a properly separated government system would work, let alone why it should function that way. It should concern everyone that these types of top down authoritarian mentalities are more prevalent as people without a tradition or culture based in western philosophy that has led to what used to be a clear separation of powe…

>It should concern everyone that these types of top down authoritarian mentalities are more prevalent as people without a tradition or culture based in western philosophy that has led to what used to be a clear separation of powers, become more prominent even all over the western/European based world.

Do tell, what people specifically are you referring to?

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#655

Post by sobkas »

Every law in USA was made with overwhelming input from lobbyists and other monied interest. What law will be passed depends on will of oligarchs not public.

Every law that accidentally helps people not oligarchs can be stopped by activists judges either in state or federal courts(including Supreme Court).

Because judges in the end serve corporations/oligarchs first and ideology second. The Federalist Society?

This stems from the fact that politicians that choose them(and if they are elected by public they can be bought directly) were also bought.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#656

Post by endisneigh »

dahart wrote: post #647
endisneigh wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No, that’s not why they lost. The reason is because they effectively lend it to many people simultaneously, and implement no controls on getting it “returned” (deleted) by the people they lent it to, while even being aware that some of them don’t “return” it. The technicality that they keep a copy of the book while it’s being lent isn’t really at issue here at all. It’s not because there are two copies, it’s because…

Even if they did what you described they would still lose. There would be no way to implement a control to prevent an additional simultaneous copy. It's not a technical issue, it's simple impossible inherently.

I don't know why companies keep trying this. MP3.com, Aereo, etc. The precedent is clear.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#657

Post by dahart »

endisneigh wrote: post #656
dahart wrote: post #647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that’s not why they lost. The reason is because they effectively lend it to many people simultaneously, and implement no controls on getting it “returned” (deleted) by the people they lent it to, while even being aware that some of them don’t “return” it. The technicality that they keep a copy of the book while it’s being lent isn’t really at issue here at all. It’s not because there are two copies, it’s because…

Even if they did what you described they would still lose. There would be no way to implement a control to prevent an additional simultaneous copy. It's not a technical issue, it's simple impossible inherently. I don't know why companies keep trying this. MP3.com, Aereo, etc. The precedent is clear.

The question isn’t whether it’s technically possible, the question is whether they even tried, and one of the reasons they lost is not just because they didn’t try at all, they instead looked the other way when they knew the borrowers didn’t “return” the book.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#658

Post by beej71 »

hackernewds wrote: post #275
allturtles wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The artist does deserve to retain value for some time, but the question is how long should that be such that all interests are balanced?

As an author myself, I think the proper copyright term is ~15 years from the copyright inception. (Disclosure: I give my stuff away for free online--people buy paper copies if the want them, so I'm not a publisher's idea of a model author.)

A relative handful of publishers/authors will lose out (e.g. Dune, Van Gogh), but the public domain will be well-served. 15 years seems like a good balance point.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#659

Post by dahart »

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.

> It’s a ruling that controlled digital lending is illegal.

That’s not really true. One issue described explicitly in the decision is that the lending is mostly uncontrolled, and worse there’s evidence of it the defendant was aware of. The second issue is that the defendant isn’t using the first sale doctrine, their defense is fair use. Presumably the whole reason they decided to argue fair use is because they knew they weren’t adhering to the lending analogy, because they were aware they were effectively distributing copies, not just lending them.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#660

Post by endisneigh »

dahart wrote: post #657
endisneigh wrote: post #656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if they did what you described they would still lose. There would be no way to implement a control to prevent an additional simultaneous copy. It's not a technical issue, it's simple impossible inherently. I don't know why companies keep trying this. MP3.com, Aereo, etc. The precedent is clear.

The question isn’t whether it’s technically possible, the question is whether they even tried, and one of the reasons they lost is not just because they didn’t try at all, they instead looked the other way when they knew the borrowers didn’t “return” the book.

my point is that even if they did try, the outcome would've been the same and CDL was doomed from the beginning. their inane emergency CDL plan simply accelerated this outcome
Post reply on HN