EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers • Hacker News Board

Re: EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers

#21

Post by tzs » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 5:06 PM UTC

jjcon wrote: post #2

EFF is on the wrong side of both the law and common sense here and they will lose no matter how much they pay their legal team. Internet archive didn’t just steal from ‘publishers’ they are also stealing from authors big and small. You don’t get to give out free digital copies of books to people without permission and expect to get away with it. This exact digital/physical equivalence idea has already been through th…

I may be misunderstanding this case, but the impression I get is that they are not defending the unlimited lending that IA did as part of their "National Emergency Library" (NEL). They are just defending the earlier "Controlled Digital Lending" (CDL) program where the number of copies lent out at any one time was limited to the number of physical copies in the physical libraries [1].

The lawsuit is going after both NEL and CDL. The defense is trying to save CDL.

I don't think VidAngel is necessarily relevant here because VidAngel was making derivative works.

[1] If someone checked out a physical copy, did they reduce the number of digital copies that could be out until the physical copy was returned?

Re: EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers

#22

Post by gpm » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 5:08 PM UTC

jjcon wrote: post #20

gpm wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you broke the law you don't just role over and give the other side whatever they want. They're inevitable going to ask for more compensation than they are entitled to (why wouldn't they), and you need to push back to make the penalty fair. That's just how our legal system is set up to work. The EFF is on the right side of the law the same way a lawyer for a criminal is. The lawyer (eff) is fulfilling a necess…

> The EFF is on the right side of the law the same way a lawyer for a criminal is. By this definition, no lawyer can be on the wrong side - you know what is meant by the phrase ‘wrong side of the law’ stop it with the mental gymnastics.

No, the criminal in the above is absolutely on the wrong side of the law. That's the assumption after all.

Lawyers are on the wrong side of the law when they break it themselves (see, e.g., Avenatti), but not when they represent people on the wrong side of the law. The latter is necessary for the common law court system to work at all.

Re: EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers

#23

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 5:08 PM UTC

jjcon wrote: post #20

gpm wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you broke the law you don't just role over and give the other side whatever they want. They're inevitable going to ask for more compensation than they are entitled to (why wouldn't they), and you need to push back to make the penalty fair. That's just how our legal system is set up to work. The EFF is on the right side of the law the same way a lawyer for a criminal is. The lawyer (eff) is fulfilling a necess…

> The EFF is on the right side of the law the same way a lawyer for a criminal is. By this definition, no lawyer can be on the wrong side - you know what is meant by the phrase ‘wrong side of the law’ stop it with the mental gymnastics.

[deleted]

Re: EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers

#24

Post by gpm » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 5:11 PM UTC

tzs wrote: post #21

jjcon wrote: post #2

EFF is on the wrong side of both the law and common sense here and they will lose no matter how much they pay their legal team. Internet archive didn’t just steal from ‘publishers’ they are also stealing from authors big and small. You don’t get to give out free digital copies of books to people without permission and expect to get away with it. This exact digital/physical equivalence idea has already been through th…

I may be misunderstanding this case, but the impression I get is that they are not defending the unlimited lending that IA did as part of their "National Emergency Library" (NEL). They are just defending the earlier "Controlled Digital Lending" (CDL) program where the number of copies lent out at any one time was limited to the number of physical copies in the physical libraries [1]. The lawsuit is going after both N…

> I don't think VidAngel is necessarily relevant here because VidAngel was making derivative works.

And also because they were circumventing DRM, which is what the Wikipedia article would have you believe the case was about (I haven't looked closer than that).

Re: EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers

#25

Post by bosswipe » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 5:12 PM UTC

evgen wrote: post #6

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. However, I would expect the EFF to (possibly) be good negotiators. They might be able to make a settlement that keeps the IA's website open while satisfying the publishers - or at least making the lawsuit complicated enough that the publishers won't keep going. Without this representation, the publishers could almost certainly bankrupt the IA, even if they are given the minimum infringement fine of $200/ea.

It is possible that this is one outcome that the EFF is hoping for by joining this particular bit of litigation, but I just do not see it working out that well. No one, outside of a small group of techies, knows about or cares about the EFF; having the EFF formally on the IA side is not going to move the needle much in terms of PR. On the other hand, having the EFF on the opposition may galvanize the publishers to no…

In a just world the destruction of the Wayback machine should be a much bigger crime than some copyright violation. Sadly our world is not just, content conglomerates have bought themselves the most draconian laws possible to protect their profits above all other benefits to humanity. They must be stopped!

Re: EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers

#26

Post by elliekelly » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 5:12 PM UTC

jjcon wrote: post #2

EFF is on the wrong side of both the law and common sense here and they will lose no matter how much they pay their legal team. Internet archive didn’t just steal from ‘publishers’ they are also stealing from authors big and small. You don’t get to give out free digital copies of books to people without permission and expect to get away with it. This exact digital/physical equivalence idea has already been through th…

It isn’t always about winning. Most of the time it’s more about not losing too much money. EFF’s legal team will help IA mitigate the damage wherever possible so that IA will have a shot at continuing to exist.

Re: EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers

#27

Post by jjcon » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 5:13 PM UTC

tzs wrote: post #21

jjcon wrote: post #2

EFF is on the wrong side of both the law and common sense here and they will lose no matter how much they pay their legal team. Internet archive didn’t just steal from ‘publishers’ they are also stealing from authors big and small. You don’t get to give out free digital copies of books to people without permission and expect to get away with it. This exact digital/physical equivalence idea has already been through th…

I may be misunderstanding this case, but the impression I get is that they are not defending the unlimited lending that IA did as part of their "National Emergency Library" (NEL). They are just defending the earlier "Controlled Digital Lending" (CDL) program where the number of copies lent out at any one time was limited to the number of physical copies in the physical libraries [1]. The lawsuit is going after both N…

> If someone checked out a physical copy, did they reduce the number of digital copies that could be out until the physical copy was returned?

In the case of VidAngel yes - you would buy a copy from VidAngel, stream it, then return it for the same amount sans a dollar fee. Vidangel would often run out of copies of popular shows to stream and they would alert you when that was the case and not let you stream it.

Re: EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers

#28

Post by wanderr » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 5:13 PM UTC

jjcon wrote: post #20

gpm wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you broke the law you don't just role over and give the other side whatever they want. They're inevitable going to ask for more compensation than they are entitled to (why wouldn't they), and you need to push back to make the penalty fair. That's just how our legal system is set up to work. The EFF is on the right side of the law the same way a lawyer for a criminal is. The lawyer (eff) is fulfilling a necess…

> The EFF is on the right side of the law the same way a lawyer for a criminal is. By this definition, no lawyer can be on the wrong side - you know what is meant by the phrase ‘wrong side of the law’ stop it with the mental gymnastics.

By that definition no lawyer operating in good faith is.

You're not arguing about whether the defendant is on the wrong side of the law.

Re: EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers

#29

Post by kstenerud » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 5:14 PM UTC

jjcon wrote: post #2

EFF is on the wrong side of both the law and common sense here and they will lose no matter how much they pay their legal team. Internet archive didn’t just steal from ‘publishers’ they are also stealing from authors big and small. You don’t get to give out free digital copies of books to people without permission and expect to get away with it. This exact digital/physical equivalence idea has already been through th…

"EFF is on the wrong side of both the law and common sense here"

Are they? We can armchair critique all we want, but I find it doubtful that an organization with so much litigation and advocacy experience under their belt would naively throw away a ton of money on a losing battle.

Re: EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers

#30

Post by catawbasam » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 5:15 PM UTC

jjcon wrote: post #17

toomuchtodo wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Internet Archive's best bet is to settle and apologize very publicly. One should never apologize for civil disobedience against unjust laws.

Quit trolling/baiting this thread - this isn’t some big corporatist conspiracy - this is protecting creator livelihoods big and small. The vast majority of the civilized world agrees it is good to protect ‘art’ (from code to books) to keep it sustainable. Just because it can be infinitely duplicated and shared ‘freely’ does not mean it is sustainable to do so. If there is no money in art, less art will be made and mo…

The "Mickey Mouse Protection Act" moved the goalposts so egregiously as to damage the legitimacy of the legal protections. Those who manipulate the laws must understand they are weakening the rule of law by their actions.