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

451–460 of 848 posts

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

#451

Post by kragen »

M2Ys4U wrote: post #449
kragen wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you don't know nearly as much about future human history as you claim to in the last century, birth control became first legal and then almost universal, automobiles became common, britain quit india, colonialism ended in most of the world, totalitarianism was invented, an antisemitic dictator conquered a continent and wiped out many of the world's biggest jewish communities, nuclear weapons were invented, the new yo…

The last 300 years have seen copyright laws being ratcheted up and up and up. I think it's a fairly safe bet to say that trend will continue for the next 75 years, even if it's not inevitable.

it does seem more likely than not, but that's many orders of magnitude away from the statement you made

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

#452

Post by tptacek »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #439
tptacek wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's bad if you want people to be able to do 1:1 lending of digitized books. It's fine if you don't care. The point is that it didn't need to happen; there was no reason to appeal the case. It was a loser to begin with.

> It's bad if you want people to be able to do 1:1 lending of digitized books. How? By your argument, this was already clearly illegal. What did the precedent change?

The court could instead have heard a case exclusively about books that were under copyright but not available digital in any form, or one in which a library had some existing licensing arrangement that covered the usage imperfectly, which would have made both the transformation and commercial impact fair use tests more complicated. Instead, IA chose to bring this deeply unsympathetic fact pattern to the 2nd Circuit. Now, in that circuit, if some entity did have that more sympathetic fact pattern, it doesn't matter: the finding here was categorical.

I feel like this is not a very complicated point I'm making, but I'm happy to keep expanding on it.

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

#453

Post by pie_flavor »

squeaky-clean wrote: post #433
pie_flavor wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a footnote because it's the most inconsequential part of the ruling. The copyright infringement status of making thousands of unlicensed digital copies is not affected by whether you own a physical copy or not.

This ruling isn't about making thousands of digital copies. They're no longer able to offer even 1 digital copy. The CDL is where they would buy N physical copies of a book, and then allow N active rentals of the digitally scanned version of that book with a waiting list for when people "return" them. Can't do that anymore.

The bytes were copied thousands of times. That means they made thousands of copies. It doesn't matter if the UX describes a concept of 'a digital copy' which requires that a new copy not be made until the old copy is deleted; copyright law does not say that this exempts you from the usual rule against making unlicensed copies. What you are thinking of, where you own 'a digital copy' of a book, is owning a license (as you have checked an 'I understand' box about a dozen times), not owning a copy. IA does not have permission to sublicense copies it legally owns (and didn't legally own the digital copies to start with, as their purposes weren't within the §108 carveout).

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

#455

Post by grecy »

hilbert42 wrote: post #432

Things will get worse before they're get better, but ultimately the publishers will pay dearly for this. First, the IA should move to a more favorable copyright jurisdiction to preserve the collection. Second, there's no point fighting the copyright lobby, especially so in the US. We need to build an alternative access to knowledge that bypasses the copyright/ownership of knowledge paradigm.

> the IA should move to a more favorable copyright jurisdiction

Ask the team at The Pirate Bay or Kim Dotcom how that worked out for them.

The US WILL pursue it's copyright laws to any country on earth.

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

#456

Post by FeepingCreature »

codedokode wrote: post #409
tourmalinetaco wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they are not distributing the work, which is how the law currently works. And in case you’re not aware, there are many lawsuits filed that suppose this exact claim: that models are not transformative and are thus breaking copyright law.

It doesn't matter; before training they download the content for training from Internet and thus make a "copy" which might be illegal.

This would break all websites. You can't check a license before loading the page.

Generally speaking, when you request a site, barring a compelling reason to believe otherwise, the assumption must be that accessing the content is legal.

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

#457

Post by hilbert42 »

ipatrol wrote: post #443
hilbert42 wrote: post #432

Things will get worse before they're get better, but ultimately the publishers will pay dearly for this. First, the IA should move to a more favorable copyright jurisdiction to preserve the collection. Second, there's no point fighting the copyright lobby, especially so in the US. We need to build an alternative access to knowledge that bypasses the copyright/ownership of knowledge paradigm.

I'm starting to think this is the case, but the US is a country that enforces its version of copyright with gunboats. Not an easy task to simply find another jurisdiction.

"US …copyright with gunboats."

Right, that's why it will get worse. Unfortunately, we're still only in skirmish territory. And it's a battle we have to win.

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

#458

Post by TeMPOraL »

tzs wrote: post #383
kiba wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I question the assertion that copyright is necessary for compensating intellectual labor. For example, there will always be a need and demand for technical documentation, engineering, legal writing, etc, all of which will and must exists without copyright. A lawyer's product is specific to his client, and bridge engineers' output are a correctly designed bridge. You can extend it to musicians and artists. A musician…

So a musician who writes great original music that a large number of people want copies of so they can listen to it whenever they want should spend much of their time playing gigs and weddings instead of spending it writing more new music?

That's what they already do, if you add concerts to the mix. Their publisher already takes approximately all the money from selling copies anyway. And that's who the copyright is really protecting.

Also: a musician who writes great original music should keep writing great original music, instead of forever charging rent on the music they already wrote.

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

#459

Post by hilbert42 »

grecy wrote: post #455
hilbert42 wrote: post #432

Things will get worse before they're get better, but ultimately the publishers will pay dearly for this. First, the IA should move to a more favorable copyright jurisdiction to preserve the collection. Second, there's no point fighting the copyright lobby, especially so in the US. We need to build an alternative access to knowledge that bypasses the copyright/ownership of knowledge paradigm.

> the IA should move to a more favorable copyright jurisdiction Ask the team at The Pirate Bay or Kim Dotcom how that worked out for them. The US WILL pursue it's copyright laws to any country on earth.

It's hardly been successful with China (but I'm not advocating it as a solution).

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

#460

Post by EarlKing »

alexey-salmin wrote: post #434
EarlKing wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making a copy is not always illegal when it is considered fair use or fair dealing. Part of the analysis for determining the same involves the quantity of material copied. They copied entire books. Your other points are entirely irrelevant. They knew what they were doing was wrong, and they jeopardized the archive by doing it. If you want to change the law, change the law. If you want to break the law, break it yours…

> If you want to break the law, break it yourself... don't drag the archive down with you to do it. It takes a court decision to know if the law was broken or not. You apparently forget that the Wayback Machine itself breaks copyright laws and went to court over this many times. Most cases were settled by removal of infringing content but it doesn't undo the fact that infringements did actually happen. The IA exists…

> It takes a court decision to know if the law was broken or not.

It takes only a working mind to know that, and the court's decision was obvious to most before it was rendered. This could have been foreseen (and was).

> You apparently forget that the Wayback Machine itself breaks copyright laws and went to court over this many times.

...and they had good reason to do so then as there were fair use arguments to be made in favor of what they'd done. That was not the case here, and they were warned repeatedly and chose to ignore that advice.

> The IA exists in the first place because Brewster Kahle isn't afraid to test what's possible and go to court if necessary.

There's a difference between being unafraid and being foolish. Guess which one this was.

> You can take it or leave it. Or you can build your own archive... oh wait, you can't because it breaks the copyright law which is unacceptable for you.

Ah yes, except for that whole fair use thing and explicit carve-outs for the actually legal work they do, which I've been commending throughout this entire thread. Please take your blackwhite thinking elsewhere. It's not productive.

Post reply on HN