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

Anna's Archive hit with $19.5M default judgment and global domain takedown order

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 246 posts

Re: Anna's Archive hit with $19.5M default judgment and global domain takedown order

#141

Post by Llamamoe »

aftbit wrote: post #82
rendx wrote: post #67

The moment I saw their Spotify announcement I expected it to go bad. And they didn't even release anything from it other than metadata! (I understand this case is about their books, but I feel it got a lot more heat due to the Spotify action.) Please, dear Anna, don't disappear on us. We need you for the books! Plenty of sources for music around.

Yeah, I don't understand why they made that announcement then didn't actually release it. All of the heat, none of the archival benefit...

It's definitely a stupid move. Even if you are going to do it, it should be completely independently of AA to distribute the risk.

Re: Anna's Archive hit with $19.5M default judgment and global domain takedown order

#142

Post by rangerelf »

CSMastermind wrote: post #137
jonhohle wrote: post #104

Not going to claim anything regarding Anna’s Archive’s legitimacy, but what do libraries look like in the future? We’re just going to give up and say, first sale was great while we had it, but digital makes it obsolete? When you die, screw donating your collection of “licenses” to somewhere productive; those contracts died with you? Everything is streaming, so you never purchased anything anyway? It’s crazy to me tha…

> It’s crazy to me that two decades after the iTunes Store the trade and resale of digital goods isn’t protected by law. You aren't buying a digital good, you're buying a limited license to use that digital good.

That's exactly what jonhohle was talking about -_-

Re: Anna's Archive hit with $19.5M default judgment and global domain takedown order

#143

Post by smallerize »

quentindanjou wrote: post #29
smallerize wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No? AI companies have been hit with court cases for that. Google, xAI, Open AI, and Meta at least.

Were these from the same high-profile publishers? What was the judgment? Seems that their domains are still active. Why is there a difference in judgment here?

Anthropic's judgement is currently $1.5 billion in its piracy case. The judge is reviewing it. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/05/authors-fight-fo... The others are still ongoing.

Re: Anna's Archive hit with $19.5M default judgment and global domain takedown order

#145

Post by advisedwang »

malfist wrote: post #3

Since when does a judge in NY get to tell Greenland they can't have their registrar sell to Anna's Archive?

Per the article:

> However, most of the intermediaries are foreign entities. Whether they voluntarily comply with a U.S. court order remains to be seen. While some foreign companies have taken action following U.S. injunctions, others have historically ignored them, citing a lack of local jurisdiction.

Re: Anna's Archive hit with $19.5M default judgment and global domain takedown order

#146

Post by wolvoleo »

blairbeckwith wrote: post #138
presbyterian wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do, but under a completely different system than the way that they do for print books. When a library buys a print book, they can keep it in circulation for as long as they want and it's physically durable, but for digital, they're paying either per circulation or for an amount of time. They never own anything, they pay for temporary licenses, just like you never own the digital media you purchase in most cases.…

Is there really a meaningful distinction between how libraries treat digital book licenses and physical books when you actually hit reality? My knowledge of how libraries work is very shallow, but I've always understood that they treat physical books as essentially consumable and have fairly high standards for what a "lendable" copy of a book is. A purely assumptive example, but if a library pays for a 2 year license…

The difference it's that in the physical case the choice is up to the library, in the other it's forced upon them by the publisher.

Re: Anna's Archive hit with $19.5M default judgment and global domain takedown order

#148

Post by nemomarx »

blairbeckwith wrote: post #138
presbyterian wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do, but under a completely different system than the way that they do for print books. When a library buys a print book, they can keep it in circulation for as long as they want and it's physically durable, but for digital, they're paying either per circulation or for an amount of time. They never own anything, they pay for temporary licenses, just like you never own the digital media you purchase in most cases.…

Is there really a meaningful distinction between how libraries treat digital book licenses and physical books when you actually hit reality? My knowledge of how libraries work is very shallow, but I've always understood that they treat physical books as essentially consumable and have fairly high standards for what a "lendable" copy of a book is. A purely assumptive example, but if a library pays for a 2 year license…

They sell them at the end of their life, sometimes, so you recoup a bit of the cost there. And you can also get books donated which reduces the up front cost.

I don't see a good way to do that for digital copies, and of course the expiry would be wholly artificial scarcity for them even if it was only a little bit more expensive than physical.

Re: Anna's Archive hit with $19.5M default judgment and global domain takedown order

#149

Post by JumpCrisscross »

blairbeckwith wrote: post #138
presbyterian wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do, but under a completely different system than the way that they do for print books. When a library buys a print book, they can keep it in circulation for as long as they want and it's physically durable, but for digital, they're paying either per circulation or for an amount of time. They never own anything, they pay for temporary licenses, just like you never own the digital media you purchase in most cases.…

Is there really a meaningful distinction between how libraries treat digital book licenses and physical books when you actually hit reality? My knowledge of how libraries work is very shallow, but I've always understood that they treat physical books as essentially consumable and have fairly high standards for what a "lendable" copy of a book is. A purely assumptive example, but if a library pays for a 2 year license…

> Is there really a meaningful distinction between how libraries treat digital book licenses and physical books when you actually hit reality?

The main difference I see is the centralisation of censorship vectors. Pulling physical books off library shelves is visible and rightfully prompts a shitshow. Bullying a publisher into not renewing lending licenses strikes me as way easier to pull off.

Post reply on HN