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

371–380 of 848 posts

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

#371

Post by smallerize »

stepupmakeup wrote: post #254
Yawrehto wrote: post #15

I hope this doesn't bankrupt the Internet Archive (either the legal fees or the case - I don't recall what they're asking for). It would be bad if the Wayback Machine, the biggest internet archivist around, went under, and also all the books, software, et cetera that the Archive hosts. I wonder if there's any way to archive all of the Wayback Machine (82.3 petabytes), or, better yet, all of the Internet Archive (whic…

For wayback machine, are those compressed, deduplicated numbers? A semi-popular domain can have millions of results on their CDX api, but with https/https duplicated and about 90% of results are error pages or pages with deliberate garbage / LFI attempts in them.

Deduplication is not trivial. Each scrape is stored in a WARC archive, so you would have to unpack several large files, dedupe, and then pack them back up again. I believe they are at least compressed within each snapshot though.

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

#372

Post by breck »

Petersipoi wrote: post #337
breck wrote: post #53

[flagged]

> All updates are subject to approval by the World Wide Scroll reps. Lol, no thank you. Bold of you to try and become the arbiter of all human knowledge in this dystopian future you envision.

Any better suggestions?

I put that in just as a suggestion for an enforcement mechanism in case people put trackers in their folders.

But if you look at the design of the WWS, it is radically anti-censorship. The only thing that would be moderated would be that single "root.scroll" file.

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

#373

Post by pie_flavor »

jandrese wrote: post #113
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…

This is just a bunch of fnords. 'Electronic' is not a magic word that changes what copyright protects. Copies are copies and IA distributed unlicensed copies and your local library does not distribute unlicensed copies.

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

#374

Post by 8note »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #203
tomxor wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're arguing against a principle that applies to physical libraries (Who also have films btw)...so are physical libraries also nonsense? Libraries do not serve the interest of publishers (and let's just focus on publishers because if we're being real here, publishers are the ones who stand to lose money - "think of the authors" is just a distraction)... i digress, Libraries exist as a benefit to society, they aren'…

> let's just focus on publishers No. I'm focusing on all media - books, tv, movies, games, etc. It's one set of copyright laws. > so are physical libraries also nonsense? Copyright strikes a balance of rights between content creators/owners and content consumers. Physical libraries with the limitations of physical transfer strike are a reasonable balance. A global digital pool with instantaneous and unlimited transfe…

What's missing is a requirement that any digitally published works must also be made available as physical media. Content owners can't keep their media out of public libraries by only publishing digitally. Otherwise, libraries need to be able to lend digital works

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

#375

Post by codedokode »

indigovole wrote: post #321
codedokode wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There's the questions of whether first sale _should_ apply to digital works in the same way it does to physical works, and whether it _does_ apply to physical works under current law. I'm teetering at the top of a very tall fence on the _should_ question. Publishers have always been opposed to digital first sale for a very simple reason: fear that their prices will go to zero. Used physical books prices are pennies o…

Interesting note. Indeed, copy is defined as a material object where the work is "fixed". It looks like it was made intentionally to not let buyers re-sell electronic files.

But there is also a definition of "fixed":

> A work is “fixed” in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration. A work consisting of sounds, images, or both, that are being transmitted, is “fixed” for purposes of this title if a fixation of the work is being made simultaneously with its transmission.

And definition of "display":

> To “display” a work means to show a copy of it ...

So does it mean that if we have, let's say, a hard drive with legally obtained ebook (a copy fixed in a tangible medium), and somehow transmit the book (show it to somebody) over the Internet from it without "fixing" (permanently storing) then it doesn't fall under "making a copy" or "display" and is perfectly legal? And maybe we can stream music the same way?

I am not a lawyer of course just curious.

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

#376

Post by codedokode »

tptacek wrote: post #346
Dylan16807 wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please explain how you think retinas work. And they didn't say anything about visual recall.

If you all want to nerd out about how eyeballs works that's cool, this is the place for that kind of thing, keep it chill, etc. But the law absolutely does not agree that looking at a painting equates to creating a copy of that painting; under the Copyright Act, the colloquial term "copy" means fixing a work into some physical media from which others can recall it.

So if you stream a movie from a hard drive over the Internet without "fixing" it anywhere, so that the viewer cannot "recall" it, but only watch, then you are not making a "copy" and not breaking the law?

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

#377

Post by [deleted] »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #328
forrestthewoods wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's certainly not the license that Internet Archive paid for! If we want media licenses to cost thousands of dollars so they can be loaned out digitally fine. That's something that can be fairly negotiated. What I oppose is a regular off the shelf purchase being used for unlimited, instantaneous digital rentals. That's disastrously terrible idea.

Then find a lawsuit that specifically goes against the instantaneous part, because a ruling that says "no lending at all" is just awful.

[deleted]

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

#379

Post by codedokode »

pie_flavor wrote: post #365
codedokode wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you misunderstand the situation. If you haven't read the lawsuit [1] I suggest you look through it. Basically, there is an established practice for lending printed books: the library buys a book and lends it to patrons without permission from the copyright owner. However, publishers believe that digital books are different from physical books and established practice doesn't apply to them; they believe that l…

What you describe as lending a digital copy, is making new copies. As a matter of engineering fact, the bytes were copied from one location to another; as a matter of black-letter law, that is making a copy in the sense that it is copyright infringement to do so without a license. That IA 'controlled' it to have only one outstanding copy at a time in hands other than theirs does not make it legal. The carveout saying…

Let's say we have a device that allows to view book pages over Internet without persistently storing it in any tangible medium (like a memory card). I.e. without "fixing" it permanently where "fixing" is defined in 17 US Code 101. And we use it to view books from a remote server. In this case it seems like we are not making a "copy"; we simply let user watch book stored on our server. So this should be legal?

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

#380

Post by monetus »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #338
mumblemumble wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've also got to think about the actual value of preserving all of these works in a completely indiscriminate manner. Curation is important. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that we could keep everything forever, actually doing so would ultimately harm the value of the archive, due to Sturgeon's Law. The truth is that the vast majority of cultural output is of only ephemeral value. It's relevant to a place a…

In the space it takes to store one movie, you can store ten thousand books. For any published book, the answer of whether it's worth preserving that text is a very solid yes. There's not that much of it, no benefit to filtering. And do you think future historians won't be very interested in those politics?

Text that seems a bit more significant imo, alongside the fears of AIs turning into Ouroboruses.
Post reply on HN