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

151–160 of 848 posts

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

#151

Post by Kerrick »

EarlKing wrote: post #134
msla wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CDL is how physical libraries work: They buy a book and then lend it out multiple times to multiple people, on a one-in one-out basis, who then do not have to buy the book themselves. They even repair books to avoid purchasing new ones again. Do you think physical libraries harm the people who bring books into being?

A physical library does not involve making a copy, but lending out an existing physical copy. One book, one reader. "Controlled Digital Lending" literally involves making and transmitting a copy to another physical medium electronically. Brewster has endangered the good work done by people at the archive for a case he was never going to win and which was of dubious value. If he wants to be the next Anna's Archive the…

Does this case's effect on CDL mean that a library could still buy a huge stack of ultra-cheap eBook readers, load each one up with their one copy of a given book, and then lend out the physical readers?

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

#152

Post by tptacek »

doctorpangloss wrote: post #149
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…

[flagged]

He just created a really terrible 2nd Circuit precedent. He could have avoided that easily. How was this his job?

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

#153

Post by tptacek »

Kerrick wrote: post #151
EarlKing wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A physical library does not involve making a copy, but lending out an existing physical copy. One book, one reader. "Controlled Digital Lending" literally involves making and transmitting a copy to another physical medium electronically. Brewster has endangered the good work done by people at the archive for a case he was never going to win and which was of dubious value. If he wants to be the next Anna's Archive the…

Does this case's effect on CDL mean that a library could still buy a huge stack of ultra-cheap eBook readers, load each one up with their one copy of a given book, and then lend out the physical readers?

Presumably not, because the same copies would be created. This wasn't a case that hinged on DRM or content protection. IA was making copies, lots of copies, and that's an action governed by copyright law; it's right there in the name.

All that aside: if you have 1:1 physical books anyways, what is the reader accomplishing here? Just loan out the book.

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

#154

Post by cmiles74 »

EarlKing wrote: post #134
msla wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CDL is how physical libraries work: They buy a book and then lend it out multiple times to multiple people, on a one-in one-out basis, who then do not have to buy the book themselves. They even repair books to avoid purchasing new ones again. Do you think physical libraries harm the people who bring books into being?

A physical library does not involve making a copy, but lending out an existing physical copy. One book, one reader. "Controlled Digital Lending" literally involves making and transmitting a copy to another physical medium electronically. Brewster has endangered the good work done by people at the archive for a case he was never going to win and which was of dubious value. If he wants to be the next Anna's Archive the…

Still, under the CDL it is only one book, one person. This is significantly different from a site like Anna's Archive.

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

#155

Post by kmeisthax »

airhangerf15 wrote: post #16

Honestly the dumbest possible move by Internet Archive. IA has gotten more and more ideological as well, and it's been censoring content it doesn't like. I'm not sure if they're in the Wikipedia/Mozilla boat of screwed up political spending, but if they are, this decision should at least temper that down. I'm sure they'll be able to raise the money needed to pay off this lawsuit. It's true the Archive has a lot of am…

You're writing this as if the National Emergency Library was something way out of left field but Controlled Digital Lending was settled law. It was not: CDL and NEL were both exactly the same amount of out-of-left-field fringe copyright theory. In fact, there was already legal rulings against a digital resale scheme called ReDigi. The law is actually fairly clear that first sale only applies to transferring physical property, you cannot resell or lend an electronic transmission.

People are allowed to be angry about settled law regardless.

I question your use of "ideological" and "censoring", especially with the invocation of Wikipedia and Mozilla. Sounds like you have some political hobby horses to ride. Let us keep in mind that Internet Archive's biggest risk is just running the Wayback Machine. Hosting a copy of every website on the Internet is an extreme legal risk that is mitigated solely by the fact that basically everyone who operates or develops websites has had to fish something out of the Internet Archive at some point. If IA has an ideology, it's "it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission".

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

#156

Post by snapetom »

ndiddy wrote: post #94
jrochkind1 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, this case was not about CDL (Controlled Digital Lending). It was about DL with the "C" removed. Specifically the IA's previous CDL program only lent out one electronic copy at a time per physical copy held, and this case is about a program at beginning of pandemic where they suspended these limits. There could still be appeals in store for this case, but regardless of the outcome of this case, CDL could still be…

If you read the decision ( https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/797361df-8d... ), it almost entirely focuses on CDL not being legal in general rather than bringing up IA's "National Emergency Library" program. One illustrative quote: "IA maintains that it delivers each Work “only to one already entitled to view [it]”―i.e., the one person who would be entitled to check out the physical copy of each Work. B…

Technically true, but people are naive to think the catalyst to file the lawsuit wasn't the NEL.

CDL had been going on for years in a bit of a cold war. Publishers had a lot to lose if they lost CDL and just lived with it. When NEL happened, they decided to use their nukes. They had a rock-solid case against NEL, so might as well use it and try to take out CDL at the same time.

If they lost CDL but won NEL, they would be back where we've started for years.

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

#157

Post by dpedu »

Aachen wrote: post #81
airhangerf15 wrote: post #16

Honestly the dumbest possible move by Internet Archive. IA has gotten more and more ideological as well, and it's been censoring content it doesn't like. I'm not sure if they're in the Wikipedia/Mozilla boat of screwed up political spending, but if they are, this decision should at least temper that down. I'm sure they'll be able to raise the money needed to pay off this lawsuit. It's true the Archive has a lot of am…

What content censoring have they been doing, what could I search on to read more about it? When typing "internet archive censoring" into DDG, it just comes up with articles about this case that never even mention the word censoring

I couldn't think of anything off the top of my head either, but a google search found this: https://www.theverge.com/2022/9/7/23341051/kiwi-farms-intern...

Edit: HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32743325

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

#159

Post by ranger_danger »

indigovole wrote: post #109
ranger_danger wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In sum, IA has not met its "burden of proving that the secondary use does not compete in the relevant market" How does this same thing not apply to physical libraries then? Even if the scope were limited to books IA itself owns (which they still denied anyways), why should one-to-one digital lending be any different than physical in-person library book lending?

The physical object can be passed around without copyright coming into play. Copyright law has special provision for interlibrary loan, and archival copies. There is nothing in the law that supports making a digital copy and and using technical safeguards to transfer it to exactly one person at a time - except licensing under the exclusive rights of the rightsholder. Congress could write something into the law to sup…

Ok I didn't think about the fact that a digital scan of a book is technically a copy. So I guess there isn't a good established law on how to handle that, you're right. I was wondering why in the ruling they were even referring to the scanned books as a copy and it just wasn't clicking in my head. Thanks

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

#160

Post by elaus »

xhkkffbf wrote: post #143
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]

This court ruling was (also) about "CDL" (controlled digital lending), i.e. lending ONE digital copy of a book for each physical book in a library's possession – and only while the physical copy was not lent.

This is as far away from "giving away infinite copies to anyone" as it could be.

Post reply on HN