CDL was incredibly stupid. DRM and legal trouble from pissed off publishers? That's the worst of both worlds. Pick one or the other, not both. It would have been better for Archive.org to ignore books and leave that domain to the pirates and legacy libraries; one defying the law and giving people books without DRM, and the other staying safely inside the law. With the combination of these two we have the best of both worlds, instead of the worst of both.
The Internet Archive has lost its appeal in Hachette vs. Internet Archive
261–270 of 848 posts
Re: The Internet Archive has lost its appeal in Hachette vs. Internet Archive
#262Earlier 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…
The rule that allows libraries to work is first-sale doctrine: once you bought a physical book you may re-sell or lend it without permission from copyright owner [1].
However you cannot do this with digital books because DRM doesn't allow that. So IA invented scanning physical books (that are legally bought and not circulated after this) as a countermeasure to allow lending digital books the same way as physical.
So do you side with the publishers who believe that "first-sale doctrine" should not apply to digital books?
Here is a quote from Article 109:
> Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title ... is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.
> (c) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(5), the owner of a particular copy lawfully made under this title ... is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to display that copy publicly, either directly or by the projection of no more than one image at a time, to viewers present at the place where the copy is located.
This allows library to "dispose" the posession of the book as I understand. So why this should not be applied to digital copies?
Re: The Internet Archive has lost its appeal in Hachette vs. Internet Archive
#263Earlier quoted context omitted.
[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.
Exactly this is what people don't get it was like a lending library not a free give away.
Re: The Internet Archive has lost its appeal in Hachette vs. Internet Archive
#264Earlier 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.
I'd argue it probably doesn't affect it. I have certainly not seen any stats to support that argument. I most certainly would not wait to compete with the rest of the world to read a book once my spot in the queue finally arrived. I would simply buy it.
Re: The Internet Archive has lost its appeal in Hachette vs. Internet Archive
#265This article doesn't mention controlled digital lending at all, what the entire lawsuit was about, and instead spends a significant chunk of the article on the national emergency library, a program that got like a one sentence mention in the judgment.
edit too late to actually edit, but this post was about the wired article before the merging.
Re: The Internet Archive has lost its appeal in Hachette vs. Internet Archive
#266Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
The people that would borrow the game from the library to play it might at best pirate it if they couldn’t get it from the library. Maybe they’d pay a few bucks tops rather than $60-80. Library game borrowers are not big game buyers in the first place. Games can and do already get around this anyway via software, if you want to argue the laws should work differently for them then I’m open to that, but I also don’t th…
If your goal is to prevent orphaned works there's much better and more targeted changes that could be made to the law! Don't need to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
> Library game borrowers are not big game buyers in the first place.
That's because today there is effectively no such thing as digital game borrowing. If there were then there would be a platform that seamlessly grants and revokes licenses on application startup/shutdown.
People just want things cheaply. Why pay $60 for a game when AmezarakGamesStore lets you play for just $5? People used to buy used discs from GameStop for $55 instead of buying a new copy for $60. Consumers don't care. They justifiably just want to spend the minimum amount of money necessary!
Re: The Internet Archive has lost its appeal in Hachette vs. Internet Archive
#267CDL was incredibly stupid. DRM and legal trouble from pissed off publishers? That's the worst of both worlds. Pick one or the other, not both. It would have been better for Archive.org to ignore books and leave that domain to the pirates and legacy libraries; one defying the law and giving people books without DRM, and the other staying safely inside the law. With the combination of these two we have the best of both…
What this court decision establishes is that you cannot treat the digital books the same way you can treat physical books. For example, you can re-sell or lend a physical book under "first-sale doctrine" but you cannot do the same with a digital book. So "they the people" have less rights now.
Re: The Internet Archive has lost its appeal in Hachette vs. Internet Archive
#268Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
No. The lawsuit was over the CDL, the NEL was barely mentioned in the judgment or really the arguments.
If it was over the NEL, the case would have been over ~4 years ago when they shut down the NEL.
Re: The Internet Archive has lost its appeal in Hachette vs. Internet Archive
#269This 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
#270Earlier 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…
The further you take a federal case the more precedent you create. The infinitesimal odds IA seemed to have at winning this case have to be weighed against the precedent they have created that may bind on future controlled digital lending cases with better facts. What IA did here wasn't costless.
> future controlled digital lending cases with better facts.
Was anyone else doing anything? Or standing ready to do anything?