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

511–520 of 848 posts

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

#511

Post by aezart »

thebrid wrote: post #58
raytopia wrote: post #34

Crazy that this is not fair use but ai is.

As much as I love the Internet Archive, is it really that crazy? The four factors used for determining fair use are: * the purpose and character of the use * the nature of the copyrighted work; * the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole * the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. In the Internet Archive case, they're d…

I don't understand how AI companies can claim that they're not aiming to output the training data when the loss function is "how well can model memorize the dataset?".

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

#512

Post by SllX »

teruakohatu wrote: post #72
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…

> 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…

This isn’t about swinging and missing. This was a project in direct contravention of the copyright laws and agreements they have within the very jurisdiction they operate. It’s like if they saw the ball coming, and in that moment decided baseball is dumb and they they would rather be playing soccer instead so they threw the metaphorical bat down, tried to kick the ball already pitched at them and somehow broke their neck in the process. That shouldn’t have been possible.

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

#513

Post by mdp2021 »

vesinisa wrote: post #470
the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think one has to be honest and realize that the desire of digital preservation stands in conflict with present day laws.

Yes, but this case was not about digital presevation but lending out scanned traditional books without proper controls, presented as some sort of a social welfare project. Choose your battles.

> lending out scanned traditional books without proper controls, presented as some sort of a social welfare project. Choose your battles

Present a better battle. I can't think of one - just that, enlarged in other fields. The battle against ignorance is the only one battle. Hail to the battle.

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

#514

Post by Dalewyn »

protocolture wrote: post #472
Dalewyn wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here ya go: https://archive.org/details/super-mario-bros.-wonder-nspe-sh... Note to dang and friends: Not condoning piracy or whatever, this is simply to prove a point that Internet Archive hosts and distributes warez with wanton abandon.

Are you telling me... that an archive has... archived something? Calling the cops right now!

Internet Archive is engaging in redistribution with flagrant disregard for the law, so it is not an archive despite what it says on the tin.

Note that preservation and redistribution are two very different things, there are very specific limitations to redistributing something you don't have explicit licensing or permissions for.

Further reading: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/108

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

#516

Post by api »

fiddlerwoaroof wrote: post #392
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…

The idea that copyright is necessary for this is ridiculous: copyright is necessary so that publishers and other middlemen can sell copies of their catalog, often with no more than a pittance to the artist. I’ve talked to a bunch of published authors who spent years of hard work on their books who receive no money at all, or an insignificant amount, from ongoing sales.

What happens without copyright is that hustlers trawl new releases, steal them, rebadge them and maybe run them through a light edit pass using AI, republish them, and take credit and all revenue. A version of that is already happening via AI assisted piracy but without copyright it gets easier because you can steal whole coherent works.

That is until the bottom drops out of even that.

Writing is tough to make a living in because it’s over saturated with content. This makes it worse by taking price to zero. Instead of too many artists chasing too few dollars you have too many artists chasing zero dollars.

This is how you get a future where novels are full of product placements because ads are the last way for artists to eat. I imagine this is what novels would be like in the Idiocracy world, which I realized a while back is not a film covertly about eugenics. It thinks it is but it’s really about the dark side of the Information Age.

For God’s sake look at what happened to the open web where everything was free and copyright was ignored. That would happen to literature.

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

#518

Post by Mindwipe »

codedokode wrote: post #298
healsdata wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because other libraries have licensing agreements that benefit authors on a different basis than "you sold one book to one library". You may argue that that shouldn't be the paradigm, but one library unilaterally changing it denies the authors their say on the change, either through licensing or legislation.

With physical books the library doesn't need to pay anything to lend it; with digital books it has to pay for every view. Why is it so? Shouldn't the buyers of digital books have the same rights, i.e. the right to re-sell or lend it? As for authors, nothing changes here: libraries lent their physical books without paying before.

It is worth noting this is a US only oddity.

In almost every other country in the world libraries do pay a royalty to lend books.

It's notable that the IA service was not geofiltered to the US only.

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

#519

Post by mdp2021 »

7bit wrote: post #503
protocolture wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe a European country that gives much less shit?

Europe is not a third world country, where nobody gives a shit. It has laws and regulations like the US. Educate yourself.

It can easily have much better laws.

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

#520

Post by klez »

rodgerd wrote: post #405
cmiles74 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How was the CDL hurting working authors? A library bought the book, paying the publisher and the author. The IA scanned the book for digital lending, this digital copy could only be checked out by one person and only when the physical book was not also checked out. I understand the court decided this wasn't okay. That aside, how was it hurting working authors?

I was looking for a clip from a trailer for a film that is available on physical media, streaming, and was in cinemas two years ago. IA had the whole film online as bluray quality rip. What's the difference between the IA and Kim Dotcom at that point?

I'd say the profit motive.

You could argue that donations amount to profit, but that's a line I'd be afraid to cross.

Post reply on HN