My thoughts in response to the lawsuit against the Internet Archive

Post by nitrogen » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 5:09 AM UTC

Silhouette wrote: post #177

horsawlarway wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand you, and vehemently disagree. There is a real and serious risk of having ALL published material eventually fall under "licensed use" instead of ownership. We're rapidly tipping towards a society where you pay rent to license everything, and own nothing. In the short term, I find this model abusive. In the long I think it guarantees we will have a competitive disadvantage against countries that don't enfo…

You make a reasonable point, so let's accept it for the sake of this discussion. Shouldn't the response then be to update copyright law, taking into account modern trends in technology and society? Surely the answer can't be to let one private organisation decide it's above the law and infringe with impunity.

Post by hnick » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 5:16 AM UTC

nordsieck wrote: post #175

wahern wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If that's the main argument of IA, they'll have a tough time in court. As a non-profit library the plaintiffs effectively have to show that the Internet Archive acted in bad faith[1] in order to receive statutory damages. § 504 (c)(2) says, > The court shall remit statutory damages in any case where an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair…

> As a non-profit library the plaintiffs effectively have to show that the Internet Archive acted in bad faith[1] in order to receive statutory damages. >> The court shall remit statutory damages in any case where an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107 Specifically, the plaintiffs have to show that uncontrolled digita…

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 5:19 AM UTC

zorpner wrote: post #191

patrickhogan1 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IA does NOT own the books. IA is only referencing that they own some of the books to distract readers. The vast majority of books IA is “lending” come from the purported “endorsement” from 130 libraries. Yet there is no explanation if the endorsement means a general “Hey we love IA” or “a contractual relationship that allows IA to lend out copyrighted works licensed by the endorsing library”

Every book IA lent, they physically owned at least one copy of. Suspension of waitlists meant that they were lending more copies than they owned; copies physically held by partner libraries.

Post by nitrogen » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 5:22 AM UTC

icelancer wrote: post #180

nitrogen wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm astonished and dismayed by all the comments calling for capitulation. It's very clear that the publishers in this case are bullies, plain and simple. You don't kneel to bullies if you want them to stop, you fight back. Not to do so leads to tyranny and feudalism, where the whims of the large become the law.

IA is being "bullied" under the letter - and likely spirit - of the law. They are the ones that did not do their due diligence and put themselves at risk. The publishers are no saints, but IA opened themselves up to this kind of legal liability.

Post by hnick » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 5:35 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #189

hnick wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No man is an island. There are explicit influences in things that are created, but there are many implicit influences too. That thing that was created, could it have been made without this society or culture? Could it have been made in a different culture? Didn't we all contribute a little bit to it? So, while I do agree with your general point that people must have incentive to create and profit/control is one way t…

As Rayiner often points out, this argument applies even more powerfully to real property, which was usually expropriated coercively from its original owners.