Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge decides against Internet Archive

file770.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 835 posts

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#11

Post by Rebelgecko »

LordDragonfang wrote: post #3

Here was the EFF's statement on the case when they initially agreed to represent the Internet Archive: https://www.eff.org/cases/hachette-v-internet-archive IIRC this all came about because the IA decided to increase their lending beyond the limits of the licenses they had during covid, when more people were trying to use their services due to being stuck inside. Also of note is that the is only the district court. W…

This lawsuit covers the limited lending they did before COVID, but that either flew under the publishers' radar or perhaps they knew but didn't care enough to respond until IA started doing the more blatant "unrestricted lending"

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#12

Post by JumpCrisscross »

alexfromapex wrote: post #7
Thorentis wrote: post #2

I think most people here saw this coming. Unfortunately this isn't a question of whether the law is good, it's a question of whether IA broke the current laws we have. IA can and should lobby for copyright law to change. But breaking it before it has changed is risky and foolish, and does more harm than good.

The system shouldn't require lobbying to get results that benefit the greater good

> system shouldn't require lobbying to get results that benefit the greater good

It does when there is disagreement over what constitutes the greater good.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#13

Post by [deleted] »

bawolff wrote: post #9

Wow, reading the article this seems like a clear cut case. Did IA really think they could win this? Edit: reading other sources, it seems like the crux of the idea is they would only lend out books where they had the same number of physical copies. I can see the reasoning for that, but it seems hard for fair use to get you there.

[deleted]

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#14

Post by IncRnd »

alexfromapex wrote: post #7
Thorentis wrote: post #2

I think most people here saw this coming. Unfortunately this isn't a question of whether the law is good, it's a question of whether IA broke the current laws we have. IA can and should lobby for copyright law to change. But breaking it before it has changed is risky and foolish, and does more harm than good.

The system shouldn't require lobbying to get results that benefit the greater good

The system is founded on protecting the rights of individuals. That's the system we have today, not a collective rights system.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#15

Post by orra »

LordDragonfang wrote: post #3

Here was the EFF's statement on the case when they initially agreed to represent the Internet Archive: https://www.eff.org/cases/hachette-v-internet-archive IIRC this all came about because the IA decided to increase their lending beyond the limits of the licenses they had during covid, when more people were trying to use their services due to being stuck inside. Also of note is that the is only the district court. W…

> IIRC this all came about because the IA decided to increase their lending beyond the limits of the licenses they had during covid

That's the excuse the publishers are pushing, but ultimately they disagree with, and have successfully argued in court it seems, against the entire principle.

Ultimately, controlled digital lending should be as lawful as format shifting an album: this is format shifting from a physical book to an ebook.

> Also of note is that the is only the district court

Phew?

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#16

Post by simonh »

kybernetikos wrote: post #10
sva_ wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didnt offer the full books afaik.

Ahh, you're right. They copied the full books, but they don't let the public view more than snippets unless they have rights to do so. That must be the 'transformative use'.

I think you are allowed to duplicate short extracts of works as part of fair use.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#17

Post by majormajor »

alexfromapex wrote: post #7
Thorentis wrote: post #2

I think most people here saw this coming. Unfortunately this isn't a question of whether the law is good, it's a question of whether IA broke the current laws we have. IA can and should lobby for copyright law to change. But breaking it before it has changed is risky and foolish, and does more harm than good.

The system shouldn't require lobbying to get results that benefit the greater good

How would that be accomplished? What are the options here?

1) an elected legislature that's supposed to consider the greater good?

2) a generally non-elected judiciary that is supposed to consider the greater good to override the legislature?

3) a hopefully-benevolent dictator to consider the greater good?

Obviously any of these methods can fail; the first of them is the easiest to "edit," as it were. Things like term limits would likely improve it, though.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#18

Post by ipcress_file »

Thorentis wrote: post #2

I think most people here saw this coming. Unfortunately this isn't a question of whether the law is good, it's a question of whether IA broke the current laws we have. IA can and should lobby for copyright law to change. But breaking it before it has changed is risky and foolish, and does more harm than good.

> But breaking it before it has changed is risky and foolish, and does more harm than good.

As I recall, this is precisely how British Columbia got Sunday shopping. Stores and shopping malls broke the law repeatedly. There were fines, but Sunday shopping was popular. Eventually, public pressure led governments to legalize Sunday opening.

I didn't agree with it then and I don't fully agree with it now, but it can work.

Re: Judge decides against Internet Archive

#20

Post by RedCondor »

America will rule in favour of private property and against the common good every single time, unless forced to do otherwise by external circumstances.

Famously it only went against segregation because "Racial discrimination furnishes grist for the Communist propaganda mills." (Attorney General James P. McGranery)

https://redsails.org/concessions/

Fortunately this means more of an impetus for piracy in the meantime, and alternative systems in the near future.

Post reply on HN