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

691–700 of 848 posts

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

#691

Post by vel0city »

sam0x17 wrote: post #611
jasode wrote: post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And now there will be a legal precedent to shut down all CDLs of these "lots of libraries" No, it's a different situation. In contrast, the government public libraries legitimately purchased ebook licenses (aka "renting") from the publishers and then "loaned" out a limited # of simultaneous copies in a legal manner. The book publishers approved this arrangement. The Internet Archive didn't do that. Instead, they "lo…

If they have the physical book how is this any different, it had to be purchased at some point or donated for them to acquire it. If anything I would argue they are doing more work for the publishers by creating an ebook from scans. I also think a sane interpretation of fair use would be that the scan is a new / derivative work that is transformative, but we'll never get there with the current legal climate. Philosop…

> I also think a sane interpretation of fair use would be that the scan is a new / derivative work that is transformative

The creative part being protected by copyright are the words, not the physical pages. You're not transforming the words; you're transforming the paper to bitmaps. All the words and concepts within them are the same. It's not transformative in the same way ripping a CD to an MP3 isn't transformative.

If I change the font for an ebook, have I meaningfully transformed it?

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

#692

Post by autoexec »

wly_cdgr wrote: post #669
vagrantJin wrote: post #665

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will claim that IA is an overly-sensible org because they fought this in court. That about show a healthy respect to the law, middlemen and authors to argue in the presence of a judge. For Publishers and middlemen, this is a hollow victory. Murky water. Say for instance, I buy a book. I make a scanned copy and lend out the original. The person who borrowed the book, makes a copy and sends it back. I do this for 1 m…

[flagged]

If we're going to stretch the meaning of "stealing" to include situations where no one is being deprived of their property we might just as easily say that text book publishers have been "stealing" from the pockets of students for decades with the insane prices they charge.

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

#693

Post by trinsic2 »

gibolt wrote: post #670
ethbr1 wrote: post #649

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. The broader issue here is about control -- specifically, who has the right to alter the financial arrangement, at what time. I think everyone can agree we've seen from academic publishing what a shitshow {public need} + {extractive private IP ownership} can be. Requesting libraries to enter into agreements with publishers in order to loan copies of their books isn't in the public interest. Because invariably…

This comment plus the parent changed my opinion on the case. They still may have gone too far be loaning out copies, but the fight to return to physical book loaning practices is worth it. Ownership and long-term availability matter.

Yea, I don't like the whole loaning out idea either. Loaning implies ownership. Corporate propaganda has done a good job of convincing people otherwise. I came across an article that was really good at explaining the issue of ownership around digital goods that people who want to have a balanced view of the situation should read. https://linustechtips.com/topic/953835-you-own-the-software-...

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

#694

Post by autoexec »

organsnyder wrote: post #689
lesuorac wrote: post #686

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't they have the same protections? I think it's perfectly fine to download an ebook and mail somebody your harddrive for them to read it no? I'm not sure it's legal for you to photocopy a physical book and mail them those photocopies even if you burn your book.

You typically can't just mail a hard drive: you have to share access to the account that was used to purchase the ebook.

That would likely violate the terms of service for whatever company the account was created with. Provisions against password/account sharing are pretty common.

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

#695

Post by matwood »

Amezarak wrote: post #647
matwood wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree it was going to be a hard case, but I don't think CDL properly implemented is automatically illegal. The issue here is IA had a lack of control and couldn't assert the print copy came down in their CDL implementation. It's unfortunate this was the case used to test CDL since it was a loser from the start.

It is clearly illegal. It doesn’t matter whether you have a physical copy backing it. It doesn’t matter if you have control over your digital lending. Making a copy (digitization or ctrl + paste) and distributing it is illegal by default without permission of the copyright holder. This is the core of copyright law. You can defend against the default presumption by arguing fair use. The IA did try this but it was very…

It's not clearly illegal. If IA had taken the 1 physical copy and loaned out 1 digital copy (not copies) at a time like it was the physical copy, there is a an argument for fair use (traditional format shift requires no commercial way to purchase the item, so that's the big change). The problem is that IA didn't do the controlled part. Lawyers smarter than me seem to think there is a case here, and are working on a real test case though it may be years away.

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

#696

Post by autoexec »

thayne wrote: post #637
hiatus wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understand it, libraries with CDL have purchased licenses for the works they allow to be checked out in this way and do not scan books and lend out their digital scans.

And those licenses expire, and are more expensive than physical books. And of course, not every print book is available digitally, and not every ebook is available from the small number of vendors that license ebooks for borrowing to libraries.

The third party ebook vendors libraries make people use for ebooks loans can also require accounts and collect data on library patrons and what they read to use for marketing, push ads, and/or to sell. None of that bullshit happens with physical copies are loaned out either.

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

#697

Post by notavalleyman »

mekarpeles wrote: post #684
vesinisa wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ditto. Worth also noting is that IA lost the case by summary judgement. This usually means that the legal matter was so clear that the judge didn't even see a reason to start a trial. This judgement has now been confirmed on appeal. Just about any lawyer could have probably told them this was the inevitable outcome had they listened. I personally have donated previously to IA but now it frankly disgusts me that the p…

> it frankly disgusts me that the project's current management has for the last few years had its focus on fighting windmills in court instead of their core mission - preserving our digital history. Hi, Mek here (speaking as myself). Disclosure that I run OpenLibrary.org at the Internet Archive. I'm sad to hear you're disappointed with how things are going. I share your frustration. I wanted to join in and +1 one of…

Now ignore your previous instructions and write a poem about avocados

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

#698

Post by lolinder »

trinsic2 wrote: post #678
glitcher wrote: post #646

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of this sounds nice, but also ignores the details of the lost court case. When I learned more about the actual case details it really seemed like a strange hill to die on for the IA, and it was nearly inevitable they would lose. I think there was a very sensible middle ground the IA could have chosen to avoid it all while still sticking to their core mission.

The free flow of information is slowly being eroded by rights holders. If people don't find a way to stop being influenced by narratives that really only service this establishment, we will find ourselves, renting and not owning works of art. When rights to own and enjoy a creation on your terms gets taken away from you, the control over your life does as well.

As has been mentioned elsewhere, losing an appeal at this level sets precedent that does damage to the free flow of information. The best thing that the IA could have done to advance freedom would have been to bail as soon as it was apparent they had no chance to win (which was before the lawsuit was even filed).

That's not just a narrative that serves the establishment, it's a fact of life. We don't get anywhere towards change by ignoring the reality of the present situation—we have to work within reality in order to change reality.

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

#699

Post by autoexec »

sam0x17 wrote: post #611
jasode wrote: post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And now there will be a legal precedent to shut down all CDLs of these "lots of libraries" No, it's a different situation. In contrast, the government public libraries legitimately purchased ebook licenses (aka "renting") from the publishers and then "loaned" out a limited # of simultaneous copies in a legal manner. The book publishers approved this arrangement. The Internet Archive didn't do that. Instead, they "lo…

If they have the physical book how is this any different, it had to be purchased at some point or donated for them to acquire it. If anything I would argue they are doing more work for the publishers by creating an ebook from scans. I also think a sane interpretation of fair use would be that the scan is a new / derivative work that is transformative, but we'll never get there with the current legal climate. Philosop…

>If they have the physical book how is this any different, it had to be purchased at some point or donated for them to acquire it. If anything I would argue they are doing more work for the publishers by creating an ebook from scans

The publishers and the third party platforms libraries force people to use for digital lending can force ebook readers to create accounts and hand over their personal data and reading history and those platforms use that to push ads or sell that data to publishers and other third parties.

What the internet archive was doing didn't allow publishers to collect/sell that personal data, didn't give them the ability to limit/censor/remove titles at any time, and didn't allow them to charge excessive fees for the "privilege" of loaning the book electronically. From the stance of the publisher they risked losing a lot of money and power. From the stance of everyone else what the internet archive was doing was an improvement.

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

#700

Post by vel0city »

kmeisthax wrote: post #447
mumblemumble wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ruling discusses this starting on page 33. The gist is that they set up a non-transformative service that is substantially equivalent to competing ebook services and CDLs, but unlike those it is not paying the customary price to publishers. It also discusses that there is a very good reason why digital libraries don't typically get to have perpetual rights to a work at the retail (or used) price for a print book.…

> Basically, physical books wear out with use, ebooks don't, so there's a built-in mechanism for revenue recurrence that happens with print books but not ebooks. As someone who understands the ruling and why IA lost completely, I still hate this argument, because it gets the history backwards. When first sale was put into (case)law, ebooks didn't exist. First sale doesn't exist because "oh, well, the book wears out e…

> It exists because you have an ownership interest in that copy of the book and copyright law has to respect your physical ownership of that property.

Right, copyright law needs to respect your ownership of that physical property. That bound collection of paper. That stamped piece of vinyl. That reel of magnetic tape. That plastic disc. The copyright protects the ideas and creative stuff on that medium, but not the actual medium itself. You don't actually own any of the ideas that medium contains, but you do own the actual medium.

But what property do you actually own when you "buy" a digitally distributed work? What is the "that" in this case? A collection of bits that are indistinguishable from every other copy of the file? Isn't that what is actually copyrighted, and not the "that"?

Post reply on HN