Live data from Hacker News

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

storage.courtlistener.com

751–760 of 848 posts

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

#751

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People with sensory impairments can buy e-books. Why would their accessibility concerns grant them free access to the fruits of someone else's labor? If you really, really want just pirate it. It's economically equivalent.

So people with perfect vision and hearing should be able to check out materials from a library and people with impairments shouldn't? That's also against the law. So you're against the existence of libraries at all? Since they provide free access to the fruits of someone else's labor? That is at least an honest position. I won't pretend to have any respect for it, but at least it's consistent.

> So people with perfect vision and hearing should be able to check out materials from a library and people with impairments shouldn't? That's also against the law.

People with impairments can also check materials out from the library. The existence of a library for some things does not mandate a library for all things.

> So you're against the existence of libraries at all?

I think that first sale doctrine strikes a great balance for physical goods. If you buy a hammer you can later sell that hammer. Or you can give it away. Or you can setup a little library where people can borrow it either for free or a small fee. Over time the hammer will degrade and some people might prefer a new hammer. The rate at which a hammer can exchange hands is severely limited by space and time. I live in Seattle and can not easily borrow a hammer from a friend in New York or London.

Digital goods are a different beast. Copies can be made instantly, perfectly, and effectively for free. There is no such thing as "borrowing" an e-book. There is only being allowed to make a perfect copy or not. Digital goods are not bound by space or time. A global library with infinite, instantaneous transfer of rights would limit sales to peak concurrent user count. This would obliterate economic incentives for producing new content which would be, imho, a catastrophic net loss for society.

Physical good and digital goods are extremely different. They can and should have different rules. Trying to force them under a single umbrella is sub-optimal for both.

If I were King my changes to copyright law would be related to duration. I'd shorten it from life+70 years to something like ~30 years with the ability to extend it an additional ~20 years with an increasing per-year fee. And possibly add some form of "use it or lose it" after just ~10 years. Or something along those lines. I am not King so I've not fully thought this through. However as someone who makes and sells proprietary entertainment software I have thought through the ramifications of global digital libraries with instant and infinite transferability.

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

#752

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea is to impose the restrictions of physical goods onto the digital one. Your idea is to eliminate the very concept of a library where ebooks are concerned. You may want to rethink your argument.

> The idea is to impose the restrictions of physical goods onto the digital one. You know how some people think rent control is a good idea but then every economist explain how it’s actually bad? That’s how I feel about “impose the restrictions of physical goods onto digital”. It’s a terrible idea that has terrible ramification if you follow things to their logical conclusion. > Your idea is to eliminate the very con…

> You know how some people think rent control is a good idea but then every economist explain how it’s actually bad? That’s how I feel about “impose the restrictions of physical goods onto digital”. It’s a terrible idea that has terrible ramification if you follow things to their logical conclusion.

We're only talking about applying that to lending, which otherwise wouldn't exist, so I don't see the issue. And more importantly it's applying the rights you get with physical books. ...Come to think of it, what restrictions are being added that don't already exist in our current broken state of digital copyright?

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

#753

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea is to impose the restrictions of physical goods onto the digital one. Your idea is to eliminate the very concept of a library where ebooks are concerned. You may want to rethink your argument.

> The idea is to impose the restrictions of physical goods onto the digital one. You know how some people think rent control is a good idea but then every economist explain how it’s actually bad? That’s how I feel about “impose the restrictions of physical goods onto digital”. It’s a terrible idea that has terrible ramification if you follow things to their logical conclusion. > Your idea is to eliminate the very con…

> You know how some people think rent control is a good idea but then every economist explain how it’s actually bad? That’s how I feel about “impose the restrictions of physical goods onto digital”. It’s a terrible idea that has terrible ramification if you follow things to their logical conclusion.

Do you have a specific grievance with respect to imposing lending restrictions on ebooks to mimic their physical counterparts?

Your analogy alone is strained and doesn't serve this topic well.

> Yeah that’s totally fine.The metaphor of an ebook library is bad and illogical.

I contend that the information contained in the books and not the format they're stored in are what matters. People checkout books from libraries to read their contents, not to sniff the paper they're printed on.

> If you wanted to write digital-first copyright laws you wouldn’t invent a faux library. There’s better solutions out there.

Do tell of these better solutions that don't require waiting several decades for all the pre-Internet baby boomer octogenarian lawmakers and judges to die off from old age.

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

#754

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whole copies of books, the form of copyrighted work most legible to the law, that are currently for sale in ebook form by their publishers For some reason this was acceptable in physical form for hundreds of years. CDL is just making it more convenient for our modern reality.

No it's not. Libraries don't make copies. They lend you the actual books. Copyright is literally right to copy. Scanning the book and doing something with, such as lending it forward, is copying. (The covid thing strengthens the case of the book guys - the CDL suddenly let anyone get anything because Archive decided to change the rules unilaterally)

I’m sure you’re aware that in our digital world, there is no difference between “transmitting the book” and “copying the book”. Yes, you can argue the law needs to change first but that’s not how changes happen. Laws are bent by society, not the other way around.

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

#755

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EDNS subnet/ECS is an optional DNS extension. DNS requests have no obligation to provide it. archive.is's behavior is in violation of RFC 7871 [1]: > Note again that a query MUST NOT be refused solely because it provides 0 address bits. The shenanigans are absolutely on archive.is's side here. [1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7871#section-7.5

When the RFC refers to a query being refused, it's talking about a response with rcode=REFUSED. Archive.is is responding with rcode=NOERROR and bogus RR data. Shenanigans? Yes. RFC violation? No.

Perhaps technically not a violation but clearly against the spirit of the RFC.

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

#756
post #750

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The First Sale doctrine was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1908 case Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobbs-Merrill_Co._v._Straus > The first US Public Library dates to 1848 (Boston). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Public_Library > The first public libraries ever dates to at least the 4th century BCE, with one known instance begun by Clearchus in Heraclea, on what is now…

Thank you for the correction. I'd thought/assumed that first sale doctrine is something that came down from English common law. I wonder if the absence of such is why authors in Canada are entitled to royalties from public libraries?

TBH, I wasn't certain of that either, which was why I'd looked up the background. I'd be surprised if there weren't some common-law precedent or foundation cited in Straus, and should look that up.

Michael Geist might be a good source to look to for specifics of Canadian law, though AFAIU the Canadian royalties programme is defined under Public Lending Right:

https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/154625>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Lending_Right>

Geist ... has apparently written on this: https://www.michaelgeist.ca/tag/public-lending-right/>

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

#757

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Define stealing.

When Bob puts in labour in order to make financial gain, and Tom takes the fruit of Bob's labour without paying what Bob has set the work of his labour as being worth.

Adding a parameter X to your definition expands it as follows:

> When Bob invests labor into X to generate financial gain, and Tom utilizes the results of Bob's labor on X without compensating Bob at his requested rate.

However, this definition becomes problematic for many values of X. Consider cases such as:

* Fashion styles * Business models or store layouts * Factory or house designs * Cake decorating techniques * Cooking methods * Agricultural practices

In these examples and many others, the concept of "owning" the fruits of one's labor becomes murky. *Intellectual property laws were originally conceived to benefit society as a whole, not just individuals.* As our understanding of innovation and creativity evolves, we may find that some communities flourish better with more flexible approaches to intellectual property.

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

#758

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's not. Libraries don't make copies. They lend you the actual books. Copyright is literally right to copy. Scanning the book and doing something with, such as lending it forward, is copying. (The covid thing strengthens the case of the book guys - the CDL suddenly let anyone get anything because Archive decided to change the rules unilaterally)

I’m sure you’re aware that in our digital world, there is no difference between “transmitting the book” and “copying the book”. Yes, you can argue the law needs to change first but that’s not how changes happen. Laws are bent by society, not the other way around.

I'm not sure I follow what you've written here but it seems like you might be the 10th person on the thread to claim that "transmitting" a book is different under the law from "copying" it, which: no, the court is not confused about which copies are taking place and whether the resulting fixture of copyrighted work in some media comes with rights to distribute that content.

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

#759

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Define stealing.

When Bob puts in labour in order to make financial gain, and Tom takes the fruit of Bob's labour without paying what Bob has set the work of his labour as being worth.

But Bob was paid. That's the point. Also most of 'intellectual' property is owned by corporations, not the creators.

If Bob prints a book and you take it without paying for it, that's stealing. If Bob prints a book and you buy it from Bob and you make copies of it and give it to your friends, that isn't stealing. And it shouldn't be classified as stealing, morally or legally.

The only reason it is considered illegal is because greedy corporate interests decided to make it so. Historically, people bought books and copied it and spread it around. That was the norm until fairly recently.

'Intellectual property' is theft. It is a fiction invented by the parasite class. Just think about it.

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

#760

Internet Archive response blog post: https://blog.archive.org/2024/09/04/internet-archive-respond...

I love IA but I won't sign their petition. If I wrote a book and it is freely distributed by IA I would be pissed too. There is no argument here.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN