Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Internet Archive has lost its appeal in Hachette vs. Internet Archive

storage.courtlistener.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 848 posts

Re: The Internet Archive has lost its appeal in Hachette vs. Internet Archive

#111

Post by wslh »

jandrese wrote: post #98
wslh wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But, beyond this ruling, could Internet Archive just scan the books, store the data and release it to the public at a later time? I am just thinking about the preservation part in your comment.

"A later time" being the after the year 2100 for most of these works. I am not exaggerating. If the author is still alive today their works won't enter the public domain until after you are dead. One can argue that the Internet Archive would be effectively useless if they strictly followed copyright law.

I only separated the logic based on your point about preservation. I completely agree that copyright rules are often abused and modified 'a piacere.' The topic of preservation resonated with me because I do amateur research in genealogy, and, for example, if you don’t interview great-grandparents or grandparents, much of that information could become irrecoverable later.

Re: The Internet Archive has lost its appeal in Hachette vs. Internet Archive

#113

Post by jandrese »

ranger_danger wrote: post #3

>Four major book publishers again thwarted the online repository’s defense that its one-to-one lending practices mirrored those of traditional libraries How does it not? I don't get it... why are physical libraries in the clear if it's still a 1:1 borrow?

Because when the rules for electronic delivery were being written in congress and later legislated in the courts the publishers make damn sure to close the "library loophole" and that pesky "doctrine of first sale". The public didn't really have a seat at the table so the laws were written with a heavy deference towards the interests of the publishers. There wasn't a partisan divide either, lawmakers came together to perfect harmony to allow publishers to bend the public over and take them without lube. If you are a congressman the last people you want to anger are the ones who own the newspapers and TV stations.

Re: The Internet Archive has lost its appeal in Hachette vs. Internet Archive

#114

Post by doctorpangloss »

tptacek wrote: post #103
msla wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The effect on authors is the same: A book is circulated multiple times after being bought once.

That's not how the law works. Again: this is a copyright case.

“The only moral laws are my laws.”

Re: The Internet Archive has lost its appeal in Hachette vs. Internet Archive

#115

Post by tptacek »

doctorpangloss wrote: post #110
msla wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The effect on authors is the same: A book is circulated multiple times after being bought once.

Are you suggesting that the law reflects an entrenched, emotional celebration of an antique, traditional notion of a library, and not something rational and consistent about lending, copyright and the economics of writing? Apostasy! I want this conversation to only be strictly about what the case law says, so that I may tell you about it “again” and again!

No, the problem is that the preceding analysis is a category error, in that it assumes the law has a purpose of minimizing the circulation of an individual book. It does not, which is why traditional libraries weren't threatened by it.

Re: The Internet Archive has lost its appeal in Hachette vs. Internet Archive

#116

Post by haswell »

halJordan wrote: post #99
haswell wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, the point isn’t that what the IA was doing was fair use, but that what LLMs are doing arguably is not . > In the AI use case, they're typically aiming not to output any significant part of the training data What they’ve aimed to do and what they’ve done are two different things. Models absolutely have produced output that closely mirrors data they were trained on. > not competing in the market with the origina…

But look at your own argument. LLMs are not fair use because they might be prompted into regurgitating something substantially similar to the trained data. And yet, the IA is 100% aiming to absolutely reproduce literally every part of the work in a 100% complete manner that replaces the original use of the work. And you cannot bring yourself to admit that the IA is wrong. When you get to that point you have to admit…

I’m not arguing that the IA is right or wrong here.

The point more generally is that there’s an asymmetry in how people are thinking about these issues, and to highlight that asymmetry.

If it turns out after various lawsuits shake out that LLMs as they currently exist are actually entirely legal, there’s a case to be made that the criteria for establishing fair use is quite broken. In a world where the IA gets in legal trouble for interpreting existing rules too broadly, it seems entirely unjust that LLM companies would get off scott free for doing something arguably far worse from some perspectives.

Re: The Internet Archive has lost its appeal in Hachette vs. Internet Archive

#118

Post by jandrese »

majorchord wrote: post #10
ianburrell wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Traditional libraries lend out the physical copies they bought. For ebooks, they have an agreement with publisher to lend out a certain number of copies. Owners are allowed to make digital copies for personal and archival use. They aren't allowed to transfer copies. The rights of digital ebook are in the license and most prohibit transfers. The rights of physical book are attached to the book. Nobody notices or cares…

As far as I know, IA owns the physical books they scanned, so why shouldn't they be allowed to lend them out 1-to-1 digitally the same as a physical library?

No, because digital works aren't "sold", they're licensed. Even if the IA did the scanning themselves, the laws are written such that a scan isn't like a physical object. You can only own a revokeable license to view it and aren't allowed to do anything else. No transformative works. No transfer of the works. No fair use.

This is why local libraries are getting bled by their e-book subscriptions. They end up paying through the nose for people to check out e-books.

Re: The Internet Archive has lost its appeal in Hachette vs. Internet Archive

#119

Post by pessimizer »

teruakohatu wrote: post #72
ilamont wrote: post #52

This has been playing out for many years. And it's all because Brewster Kahle decided that an overly broad interpretation of the Internet Archive's mission trumped the rights of authors and publishers, and the laws of the United States. When IA was asked to stop CDL - many times - he continued. The National Writers Union tried to open a dialogue as early as 2010 but was ignored: The Internet Archive says it would rat…

> In his many interviews with U.S. media, he portrays the court cases and legal judgements as a crusade against the Internet Archive and all librarians. It's not. It's the logical outcome of one man's seemingly fanatical conviction against the law and the people who work very hard to bring new books into being. If IA had won, IA would be hailed as a cultural hero. They hit and they missed. Claiming Brewster Kahle is…

[flagged]

Re: The Internet Archive has lost its appeal in Hachette vs. Internet Archive

#120

Post by tptacek »

pessimizer wrote: post #119
teruakohatu wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In his many interviews with U.S. media, he portrays the court cases and legal judgements as a crusade against the Internet Archive and all librarians. It's not. It's the logical outcome of one man's seemingly fanatical conviction against the law and the people who work very hard to bring new books into being. If IA had won, IA would be hailed as a cultural hero. They hit and they missed. Claiming Brewster Kahle is…

[flagged]

How would an executive order reverse an appeals court finding? This wasn't a regulatory case.
Post reply on HN