Internet Archive forced to remove 500k books after publishers' court win • Hacker News Board

Re: Internet Archive forced to remove 500k books after publishers' court win

#451

Post by mandmandam » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 1:46 PM UTC

Jensson wrote: post #411

mandmandam wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure your "dirty job" makes sense to you , and it's clear you even feel very righteous about it. Be that as it may, ideological crusades such as this are explicitly disallowed on here. "Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That tramples curiosity." Dang has been very clear on that, many times - whatever he "knows about you". You really think it's "impossible" for a corporation with St…

> Be that as it may, ideological crusades such as this are explicitly disallowed on here. "Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That tramples curiosity." That goes for both sides, every time someone repeats the meme "capitalism bad!" they are perpetuating their own crusade, at that time the gloves are off and it is free to engage with them. You can see it in this thread where people start…

> every time someone repeats the meme "capitalism bad!" they are perpetuating their own crusade

That's called 'false equivalence'. Discussions about economic systems can be had without being crusades.

> at that point it is ok to go and defend capitalism according to HN guidelines

No, I don't think the spirit of the guidelines is to permit "ideological battles" as long as "someone else starts it". The clear intent of the guidelines is to discourage ideological crusade altogether.

> Its those who start attacking capitalism everywhere that needs to stop if this happens too often

'Selective enforcement'. Your argument suggests that it's okay to defend capitalism in response to criticism, but doesn't extend the same courtesy to those criticizing capitalism.

> since they are almost always the instigators.

A generalization without any evidence. Also, capitalism is currently the dominant system in the West, making it both the obvious starting point for discussion of economic systems, and the most productive candidate for legitimate criticism.

I think your comment shows severe bias and an adversarial approach to discussion. Maybe you could form an appreciation for the spirit of fostering curiosity and constructive dialogue that is promoted here.

Re: Internet Archive forced to remove 500k books after publishers' court win

#452

Post by franga2000 » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 1:53 PM UTC

paulcole wrote: post #159

troad wrote: post #105

Should it be legal for IA to offer this, especially for older and out of print books? Yes, almost certainly. Is it legal? No, not as the law currently stands. You can support Robin Hood, but you shouldn't be shocked when Robin Hood is caught and sent to jail. It was a mistake and a huge legal risk for IA to do this. It could easily have brought down the whole organisation, and all that they've archived to date. I wis…

> Should it be legal for IA to offer this, especially for older and out of print books? Yes, almost certainly No, not “almost certainly.” I think they pushed the limit of what should be legal, especially since they were digitizing print books and lending those out as ebooks.

Actually, the digitising part is what I find the most acceptable. Why shouldn't they be allowed to do this? Would you have the same problem if they bought ebooks in MOBI, converted them and then lent out EPUB versions.

The lending out more copies than they bought part is what there are some good arguments against.

Re: Internet Archive forced to remove 500k books after publishers' court win

#453

Post by liendolucas » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 2:11 PM UTC

blackoil wrote: post #421

liendolucas wrote: post #110

What I will never understand is why this is needed at all. The books that I do find interesting I buy them. Sure, you can bypass paper by having ebooks. But is it really a replacement for a printed book? There is nothing like a printed book. No power needed, nor devices needed, you can go back to any page, any chapter instantly and if you have stomach even write on them. On the other side having the possibility to ju…

This is very lazy argument. You may love paper book or hardbound or whatever, that is orthogonal to the discussion about copyright and lending.

You're correct. I've realized that I what said adds little to nothing to the discussion. Nevertheless I truly hope that the IA appeals this decision and a favorable outcome revokes this kind of actions from shameless publishers. Restricting such a basic thing as books and knowledge is truly a disgusting move.

Re: Internet Archive forced to remove 500k books after publishers' court win

#454

Post by arcimpulse » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 2:14 PM UTC

quesera wrote: post #156

arcimpulse wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In practice, almost no author gets to choose how the fruits of their labor are distributed. Their rights are gobbled up immediately by one of the big publishers, who then dispose of their captive intellectual property as they see fit.

The author chooses the publisher.

In most cases this isn't accurate. The author (or, more commonly, their agent) submits the book to several publishers, who either accept or reject or refer for edits. Unless you're in the top percentile of published authors, there's very little room for negotiation. It's pretty rare for an author to have more than one "accept" on a work simultaneously, many publishers frown on multiple submission precisely because it can lead to a bidding war.

Re: Internet Archive forced to remove 500k books after publishers' court win

#455

Post by joquarky » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 2:24 PM UTC

franga2000 wrote: post #452

paulcole wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Should it be legal for IA to offer this, especially for older and out of print books? Yes, almost certainly No, not “almost certainly.” I think they pushed the limit of what should be legal, especially since they were digitizing print books and lending those out as ebooks.

Actually, the digitising part is what I find the most acceptable. Why shouldn't they be allowed to do this? Would you have the same problem if they bought ebooks in MOBI, converted them and then lent out EPUB versions. The lending out more copies than they bought part is what there are some good arguments against.

> lending out more copies than they bought

Legality aside, why is this acceptable for banks but not books?

Banks can create money out of nothing to enrich themselves, but libraries can't lend out more books than they have to enrich society?

Contemporary copyright law is pernicious and IMO if not drastically reformed soon, will be made moot and obsolete by genAI.

Re: Internet Archive forced to remove 500k books after publishers' court win

#456

Post by ysavir » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 2:27 PM UTC

johnnyanmac wrote: post #327

Dylan16807 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The basic issue is that if a library is filled with electronic books, the publishers will stand to lose a lot of profit. Profit they're only getting because they figured out a way to cheat the concept of ownership and get around the first sale doctrine. > The physical restrictions in a library - ala, only 1 person could read it at a time - is what prevents publishers from trying to charge more or prevent it. Publis…

>they figured out a way to cheat the concept of ownership and get around the first sale doctrine. How do you figure we get around this problem? The ability to reshare infinite electronic copies of a work does make this a legitimate issue compared to a physical good. I don't have any good answer.

The problem here isn't that we need to find a way to compensate authors for their work, it's that people can't survive without compensation, so writing for the sake of writing, without compensation, often isn't viable.

If we had some form of universal income, or other form of distribution of goods such that people didn't need to labor for a living (at least not with the current US norm of 40-50 hours a week), then it would be much more practical to say that all books are free for mass consumption. Then authors can write not for compensation, but for the pleasure of writing and knowing their works will be appreciated. And writers with a famous profile, who want the spoils of compensation, can be sponsored/patronized, like artists in the Renaissance.

Re: Internet Archive forced to remove 500k books after publishers' court win

#457

Post by ryandrake » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 2:28 PM UTC

mandmandam wrote: post #451

Jensson wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Be that as it may, ideological crusades such as this are explicitly disallowed on here. "Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That tramples curiosity." That goes for both sides, every time someone repeats the meme "capitalism bad!" they are perpetuating their own crusade, at that time the gloves are off and it is free to engage with them. You can see it in this thread where people start…

> every time someone repeats the meme "capitalism bad!" they are perpetuating their own crusade That's called 'false equivalence'. Discussions about economic systems can be had without being crusades. > at that point it is ok to go and defend capitalism according to HN guidelines No, I don't think the spirit of the guidelines is to permit "ideological battles" as long as "someone else starts it". The clear intent of…

> That's called 'false equivalence'. Discussions about economic systems can be had without being crusades.

I had no idea when I started this thread with a throwaway quip about future historians and Star Trek that (besides being one of my highest voted comments) it would veer off into this 70+ reply monstrosity about slavery and communism. HN commenters take things in wild directions, and I seem to have violated the no-flamewar rule unintentionally. For that I am sorry.

It would be nice to be able to discuss the multitude of possible economic power structures unlike the ones we have today, without someone always barreling in on a crusade against communism (which I never even mentioned nor support myself). This discussion doesn't seem possible when people insist on a false dilemma.

Re: Internet Archive forced to remove 500k books after publishers' court win

#458

Post by adolph » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 2:39 PM UTC

SOLAR_FIELDS wrote: post #87

adolph wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> purposeful restriction of such vast and easily shareable repositories of knowledge You don’t get more golden eggs by killing the goose who lays them. Also the IA book UI was terrible.

Is the goose here the publisher? Or the author? If it’s the latter, then would killing the publisher necessarily dictate that the author also must die?

The goose is the entire book publishing system. Do editors, typesetters, cover artists, indexers, fact checkers, proofreaders, etc not add value to be recompensed? Is copyright (the exclusive right to make copies) not the sole fulcrum upon which rests the author and many others integral to books as we know them? Unlike music, it’s uncommon for authors to go on tour selling tickets and merch.

Re: Internet Archive forced to remove 500k books after publishers' court win

#459

Post by joquarky » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 2:55 PM UTC

mardifoufs wrote: post #268

thedevilslawyer wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Absolutely. 2. Information and knowledge is for all. 3. The line to draw is 10 years to commercialize, and then release into public domain. Statute of Anne was 14 years ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne ), but 10 is better for today's age.

Should GPLv3 code be licensed to the public domain after 10 years too?

My understanding is that the whole reason GPL has its stipulations is to counter-balance the lack of commons caused by commercial exploitation and expansion of copyright. So yes.

Re: Internet Archive forced to remove 500k books after publishers' court win

#460

Post by joquarky » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 3:02 PM UTC

DamnInteresting wrote: post #200

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #82

Copyright lasts too damn long.

I am an author who relies on copyright for part of my living, yet I agree that copyright protection lasts too long. I feel like it should protect the work for a reasonable time--say 20 years--after which one must pay an initially modest but exponentially increasing fee to renew the copyright every X years. Big players like Disney could afford to keep their stuff out of the public domain for a while, but not forever.…

This is an excellent solution. We also need to dial back the domain of conditional restrictions that authors can place on works that they release to the public.

I'm tired of watching old shows that have had music redubbed because of the labyrinthian copyright conditions that inherently arise in composite works.