121–130 of 848 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How? Libraries lend out actual physical objects. They're not xeroxing the books and handing them out.
Exactly. And if a book is in high demand in a library, you'd either have to wait your turn or purchase one yourself to avoid the lending queue.
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.
Stating it explicitly: while the NEL was dubious, CDL should have been 100% legal, and it's a massive disappointment to see it ruled against.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
I thought the person you were responding too was saying that isn’t what physical libraries do. Also, as far as I know that isn’t what physical libraries do. They buy licenses to share e-books. And don’t physically scan anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I wonder why judges are anti-library. Although I can understand why they are generally anti-technology: the law school people have a lot of beefs, and beefs with the compsci people rank highly. And before you start telling me all the reasons why “beefs” aren’t a central part of the character of judges and therefore law in this country, you should maybe read more about guys like Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm sure they'll be able to raise the money needed to pay off this lawsuit. 1) The relevant statute actually remits statutory damages for libraries.[1] Though this exception went untested because... 2) The parties negotiated a damages settlement between themselves before the trial court heard evidence and arguments on damages, but they agreed to let the summary judgment appeal go forth to establish firmer precedent…
Does "remits" mean reduces here, along the lines of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remittitur ? It was an unfamiliar term to me and I'm not sure I've found the right meaning.
> [...] The court shall remit statutory damages in any case where an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107, if the infringer was: (i) an employee or agent of a nonprofit educational institution, library, or archives acting within the scope of his or her employment who, or such institution, library, or archives itself, which infringed by reproducing the work in copies or phonorecords
-- 17 U.S. Code § 504(c)(2) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504
Crazy that this is not fair use but ai is.
As much as I love the Internet Archive, is it really that crazy? The four factors used for determining fair use are: * the purpose and character of the use * the nature of the copyrighted work; * the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole * the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. In the Internet Archive case, they're d…
AI absolutely competes in the market with the original works it trains on, and with new works in those same markets. Proponents of unrestricted AI training loudly tout and celebrate that it does so.
Which would be fine, if everyone else had the same rights to completely ignore copyright. The asymmetry here seems critically broken.
Someone has to push the limits to see where they actually are. Now we know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not how the law works. Again: this is a copyright case.
I don't think people here are confused about how the law works. I think many people here feel the law shouldn't work that way. Stating it explicitly: while the NEL was dubious, CDL should have been 100% legal, and it's a massive disappointment to see it ruled against.
Further: it seems weird to blame judges for applying what is in fact very straightforward law. Seems like your problem is with Congress!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I don’t know, it doesn’t take a genius or a law degree to understand that maintaining a one to one ratio of physical copies to digitally lent books is the same shit as a regular library but more convenient. It stands to reason that the law shouldn’t preclude technological advances that make libraries more convenient. The reason traditional libraries aren’t threatened by the law is cultural. There are states that ban…