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

241–250 of 848 posts

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

#241

Post by tptacek »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #209
tptacek wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In which part of this case were the judges required to stretch at all? The decision is conveniently broken down across the 4-part fair use test.

It seems like you're making a "what happened" argument in response to a "what should have happened" argument. It's possible to make an argument in favor of this being fair use, and it's possible to make an argument against fair use. The (subjective) decision here was the latter; it doesn't preclude the possibility of the former. I'm not arguing that it was a stretch to say "no"; I'm arguing that it also wasn't a stre…

I don't think you can reasonably make a "the law is not as simple as you say it is" argument and shore it up with a "the law should be different" argument.

The 4 fair-use test questions:

* How transformative the derived work is

* How much of the work is copied

* The expressive nature of the work

* The impact the derivation has on the market for the original

The Internet Archive:

* Copied works and made them directly available, deliberately avoiding transformation of any sort other than their accessibility.

* Copied them in their entirety.

* Exclusively copied books, the expressive work most legible to copyright law since the time of the framers.

* Made them available as a substitute for publisher-provided ebooks.

Any of these factors is enough to tank a fair use case. IA presented just about the worst possible fact pattern for all of them. This was an easy, straightforward decision to read. I didn't notice any point at which the 2nd Circuit had to stretch to reach the conclusion they did.

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

#242

Post by forrestthewoods »

Amezarak wrote: post #180
forrestthewoods wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this digital copy could only be checked out by one person and only when the physical book was not also checked out Even if that were the case I don’t think it’s acceptable. Physical used goods have limitations on transfer rate. If you want a used book you have to go to the store. Or have it shipped across the country. I adamantly oppose a global digital pool with instantaneous transfers. In that world you never nee…

> If that were the case then each copy would need to sell for thousands of dollars for content creators to afford food. We have an enormous surplus of content creators and most of the content is not very good. I don't see why we need to structure our economic system such that people must be able to making a living churning out mediocre scifi/romance/mystery novels. If they can, great, but I don't think that's the goa…

> I doubt it's really much more than the number of sales now

Yikes. I can not possibly disrespectfully disagree more with everything you said.

Baldur's Gate 3 has sold about 15 million copies. It's peak concurrent user count on Steam is 875,343. A difference of about 20x that will continue to grow as BG3 will sell meaningful copies over the next 10 years.

Limiting sales to peak CCU is categorically insane. And deeply illogical.

And yes I am talking about a video game because the copyright laws for books and games are the same. I would expect the CCU/sales ratio for most successful books to be even larger than that of games which have a much more hyped launch day.

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

#243

Post by codedokode »

EarlKing wrote: post #217
LunaSea wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is incorrect. Libraries regularly scan and OCR books to make them digitally accessible and searchable. I hope the likes of the Library of Congress are ready to shutdown their online services.

Digitally accessible and searchable on site, not on line... unless you're saying the Library of Congress makes *in copyright* works available on line to all comers?

What is the difference between lending a book in the library building and over the Internet from the library website? Lending over Internet is better because it saves the user from transportation cost, allows to read books at night etc.

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

#244

Post by tptacek »

cmiles74 wrote: post #229
colejohnson66 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe not the CDL, but the "national emergency library" that ignored the one-book-per-person limit definitely went too far.

This particular ruling deals with the CDL.

It deals with both, right? Publishers sued over the NEL.

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

#245

Post by dark-star »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #231
dark-star wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what the internet does: it makes things that took days or weeks before (nearly-)instantaneous. If I have 100$, I can lend them to someone (via paypal or whatever), and when I get them back, I can immediately give them out again. I don't have to wait for them to physically go to my place (or a bank) and return cash. If your whole defense hinges on "borrowing books has to have an inherent delay of X hours/days/w…

As an author it means my book is less likely to be purchased directly by impatient library patrons.

hm. That sounds valid on first thought.

On second thought, I don't think the demographic of "people buying (your) books" and "people borrowing (your) books from a library" have that much overlap.

People who borrow books from a library are usually people who either don't want to (or can't) buy all the books they like to read. In that case they are unlikely to buy the book anyway even if they can't find it in the library... OTOH people who love your books or your writings, or people who saw a review and think "I'd like to read that book" will buy it anyway and not read a scanned version of it on their small phone screen.

I mean I understand why authors would love it if libraries didn't exist and everyone had to buy the book to read it, I would probably be in the same boat if I were an author. But the calculation "1 borrowed book = 1 lost sale" is flawed the same way that software companies' "1 warez download = 1 lost sale" is flawed

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

#246

Post by codedokode »

tptacek wrote: post #97
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?

Physical libraries lend actual physical objects. They don't copy anything. This is a copyright case.

What's wrong with lenging digital copies over the Internet? It is actually better because it allows people from remote areas to access the books, it allows lending books at night, so it makes using the library more convenient, saves user's time and library's money.

Also, copying is ok in some cases; for example, the court found that Google scanning books for Google Books did it legally; 17 US Code 108 and 109 provide some exemptions from copyright.

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

#247

Post by tptacek »

Spooky23 wrote: post #204
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…

You’re taking an extreme and ultimately wrong position. The the name of this nonsense, the Internet Archive damaged itself, perhaps mortally and damaged the concepts it stands for. Archives should be run by boards of archivists and librarians, not reckless activists.

People keep saying this, but it's unclear that there will be significant damages assessed in this case. 17 USC 504(c)(2) suggests damages will be waived as IA is recognized as a nonprofit and its copying was noncommercial. Likely the real damage here will be to legal precedent.

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

#248

Post by cmiles74 »

tptacek wrote: post #244
cmiles74 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This particular ruling deals with the CDL.

It deals with both, right? Publishers sued over the NEL.

Copying text out of the PDF from my phone is not fun! The gist is that since the CDL isn't okay then they don't really need to deal with NEL as it's predicated on the legality of the CDL (pages 15-16).

The NEL gets a couple of sentences, the bulk of the ruling is about the CDL

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

#249

Post by tptacek »

codedokode wrote: post #246
tptacek wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Physical libraries lend actual physical objects. They don't copy anything. This is a copyright case.

What's wrong with lenging digital copies over the Internet? It is actually better because it allows people from remote areas to access the books, it allows lending books at night, so it makes using the library more convenient, saves user's time and library's money. Also, copying is ok in some cases; for example, the court found that Google scanning books for Google Books did it legally; 17 US Code 108 and 109 provide…

It's good to want things. The contours of the Google case are discussed in this decision: Google Books scanning is "fair use" because books aren't made available in their entirety, and the IA's library feature is (unless SCOTUS disagrees, which seems extraordinarily unlikely) emphatically not.

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

#250

Post by tptacek »

cmiles74 wrote: post #248
tptacek wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It deals with both, right? Publishers sued over the NEL.

Copying text out of the PDF from my phone is not fun! The gist is that since the CDL isn't okay then they don't really need to deal with NEL as it's predicated on the legality of the CDL (pages 15-16). The NEL gets a couple of sentences, the bulk of the ruling is about the CDL

Wasn't NEL the basis of the original suit?
Post reply on HN