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

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

storage.courtlistener.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 848 posts

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

#411

Post by asadotzler »

healsdata wrote: post #173
cmiles74 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How was the CDL hurting working authors? A library bought the book, paying the publisher and the author. The IA scanned the book for digital lending, this digital copy could only be checked out by one person and only when the physical book was not also checked out. I understand the court decided this wasn't okay. That aside, how was it hurting working authors?

Because other libraries have licensing agreements that benefit authors on a different basis than "you sold one book to one library". You may argue that that shouldn't be the paradigm, but one library unilaterally changing it denies the authors their say on the change, either through licensing or legislation.

Which benefits? Support your claims.

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

#412

Post by Kamq »

healsdata wrote: post #173
cmiles74 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How was the CDL hurting working authors? A library bought the book, paying the publisher and the author. The IA scanned the book for digital lending, this digital copy could only be checked out by one person and only when the physical book was not also checked out. I understand the court decided this wasn't okay. That aside, how was it hurting working authors?

Because other libraries have licensing agreements that benefit authors on a different basis than "you sold one book to one library". You may argue that that shouldn't be the paradigm, but one library unilaterally changing it denies the authors their say on the change, either through licensing or legislation.

> one library unilaterally changing it denies the authors their say on the change

I mean, sure, but ~270 congressmen declaring it would also change it, and it would be viewed as legitimate. Quite probably against the same level of protest.

The amount of say the authors have doesn't actually seem to impact legitimacy much. That only seems to vary with the amount of power the person declaring the change has.

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

#413

Post by tpdly »

EvanAnderson wrote: post #278
gdw2 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like a similar concept to Aereo ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aereo ) > Aereo leased each user an individual antenna and DVR situated in a remote warehouse that they could access over the Internet, allowing subscribers to view live broadcast television and to record the broadcasts for later viewing.

For anyone who doesn't know, though, SCOTUS ruled against Aereo, who subsequently closed-up shop, filed for Chapter 11, and eventually were sold to DirectTV. You can't "clever" around the intent of the law (or around a well-funded lobby). An O'Connor v. Oakhurst Dairy[0] are the exception, not the rule. (Aside: This is nothing at all like O'Connor v. Oakhurst Dairy-- I just can't resist the urge to cite it. It's too…

The trouble is that this all builds from case law established before people could use magic vision portals to exploit efficiencies of scale and centralization.

That's not even addressing the magic of infinite copying-- lets suppose we all agree publishers deserve secondary markets be restricted to physical copies. Then the digital age gives us literal magic portals but the benefits are withheld from society because... they want their money. There were laws protecting that money before so the intent of the law is to protect the money in the new age too. For shame.

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

#414

Post by YPPH »

ranger_danger wrote: post #3

>Four major book publishers again thwarted the online repository’s defense that its one-to-one lending practices mirrored those of traditional libraries How does it not? I don't get it... why are physical libraries in the clear if it's still a 1:1 borrow?

Well, physical lending and electronic lending are not directly comparable.

* It's challenging to copy physical items (you have to photocopy every page which few people do) and you can't do it verbatim (you can't make a 'clone' of the book, it will always be an inferior reproduction). It's more straightforward to remove DRM, and you then have a 1:1 unrestricted copy.

* Library books deteriorate with use and get lost, meaning there will always be the possibility for further revenue, particularly with popular items.

* Physical lending is not governed by software interlocks; software which may not be capable of being inspected or audited by the publisher.

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

#415

Post by riffraff »

codedokode wrote: post #298
healsdata wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because other libraries have licensing agreements that benefit authors on a different basis than "you sold one book to one library". You may argue that that shouldn't be the paradigm, but one library unilaterally changing it denies the authors their say on the change, either through licensing or legislation.

With physical books the library doesn't need to pay anything to lend it; with digital books it has to pay for every view. Why is it so? Shouldn't the buyers of digital books have the same rights, i.e. the right to re-sell or lend it? As for authors, nothing changes here: libraries lent their physical books without paying before.

The difference between physical books and digital books is apparently wear

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41452031

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

#416

Post by N1ckFG »

jonny_eh wrote: post #224
0x1ch wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm heavy into the tracker and open water scenes. IA is most certainly holding some amount of content that is copyrighted and currently sold like they mentioned. It's just not easy to find.

> IA is most certainly holding some amount of content that is copyrighted and currently sold like they mentioned. It's just not easy to find. You could say the same of YouTube. As long as they take down copywritten works when asked, they should be fine.

Afaik they do respond to DMCA requests for the individual uploads, and they do more active curation for the collections where only specific user accounts have upload access.

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

#417

Post by tpdly »

jandrese wrote: post #131
criddell wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understand it, as soon as the IA makes the digital copy they want to lend (digitally or physically), they now have two copies of the book and have committed copyright infringement. As soon as they lend a copy, there are now three copies in existence (unless they delete their copy as part of the loan) which is another count of infringement.

If they had a system where every page of the original was burned as it was scanned, and when you "checked out" a book it literally deleted the original on the server as it was sending it and the person returning the book also transferred the bytes back it would be quite a show. I'm about 95% sure a scheme like that would still find them shut down. Remember the Aereo decision? They went through similar contortions, in…

> a scheme like that would still find them shut down.

Indeed. Someone else in this thread mentioned [1] as doing exactly that.

> Protecting incumbents from competition is a vital role of the courts.

What's even more confusing is that the judges involved aren't paid off or anything, they really believe themselves. Not sure what that means: Money buys charisma; the status quo is 'the best we got'; or some other bias-carrying platitude.

[1] 17 U.S.C. § 108; see also, e.g., ReDigi, 910 F.3d at 658

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

#418

Post by tptacek »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #403
tptacek wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He just created a really terrible 2nd Circuit precedent. He could have avoided that easily. How was this his job?

Not setting a terrible precedent is actually the judge's job.

Not so much? The judge applied the law to the facts. I don't think this is an especially controversial case, legally.

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

#419

Post by shagie »

codedokode wrote: post #408
shagie wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is still an open matter of law. The core issue is the transformative test in fair use. Is the model sufficiently transformative? The question of what, if any, impact OpenAI has on the copyright holder's income is yet to be demonstrated in court. So far, the lawsuits launched by the authors haven't gotten very far. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2024/feb/14/two-openai-boo... https://casetext.com/case/tremblay-…

But when they download images, music or videos from Internet they are making non-transformative copy.

I would suggest you argue with the judge that downloading something is making a non-transformative copy of the material.

I believe that, however, is irrelevant to the transformative nature of the end product - the model itself.

I would also encourage you tread Perfect 10 v Google and the appeal ( https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2007/05/google-v-perfect... https://www.eff.org/cases/perfect-10-v-google https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10,_Inc._v._Amazon.com.... )

From Wikipedia:

> The Ninth Circuit did, however, overturn the district court's decision that Google's thumbnail images were unauthorized and infringing copies of Perfect 10's original images. Google's claimed that these images constituted fair use, and the circuit court agreed. This was because they were "highly transformative." The court did not define what size a thumbnail should be but the examples the court cited was only 3% of the size of the original images. Most other major sites use a size not longer than 150 pixels on the long side. Specifically, the court ruled that Google transformed the images from a use of entertainment and artistic expression to one of retrieving information, citing the precedent Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation. The court reached this conclusion despite the fact that Perfect 10 was attempting to market thumbnail images for cell phones, with the court quipping that the "potential harm to Perfect 10's market remains hypothetical."

> The court pointed out that Google made available to the public the new and highly beneficial function of "improving access to [pictorial] information on the Internet." This had the effect of recognizing that "search engine technology provides an astoundingly valuable public benefit, which should not be jeopardized just because it might be used in a way that could affect somebody's sales.

If resizing an image to a fraction of the size of the original is sufficiently transformative and useful for a different thing (image search rather than selling thumbnails for cellphone porn) is considered fair use, then direct parallels could be drawn from that ruling to OpenAI's use of copyrighted material being sufficiently transformative and irrespective of someone selling summaries of a copyrighted work.

---

If you believe that OpenAI and other LLMs are infringing and not covered by fair use, it would be helpful if you could write a bit on how they fail at the four tests of fair use described in https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/

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

#420

Post by zinekeller »

tredre3 wrote: post #382
codedokode wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IA was trying to act like a library: they bought physical books and lent digital scans of them, ensuring that only one user can read one book at a time. So IA's position is that you can treat digital books like physical books, i.e. re-sell them or lend. The only difference is that they don't require you to come to library in person. Publishers position is that digital books are different from physical; you have no ri…

Nobody complained when IA was lending to one user at a time. The lawsuits started when they removed that restriction during covid.

Techincally the publisheres were already complaining before but they knew that the stakes were really unclear (there is a possibility that they lose and set a precedent against their wishes), but IA realy opened a gaping hole with the emergency lending program.
Post reply on HN