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

National Emergency Library

archive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–59 of 59 posts

Re: National Emergency Library

#51

Post by [deleted] »

thanksforfish wrote: post #45
shakna wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> pointing out that this will make it harder for them to eat and pay rent during the isolation period. Which makes very little sense. Royalties on books already pay out very little, and at very inconvenient timespans. It is probably not going to make any impact for most authors.

I'll try a less snarky rebuttal because I think there is a point here. Why does IA get to make that decision? I get why this has populist support, but that's not an excuse to commit piracy. I get that IA is popular, but I'd also be annoyed if a less popular company did this. If this was a government level decision to nationalize bookstores, to waive library checkout limits, then I'd understand a little more. But some…

[deleted]

Re: National Emergency Library

#52

Post by Kye »

acdha wrote: post #46
philipps wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You assume that everyone reading a copy of the book, would also be willing (or able) to purchase it. That’s not the case.

That’s too absolute: nobody is arguing that there’d be a 100% purchase rate but it seems highly unlikely that there will be no sales impact from having free copies available from a reputable source with very high search-engine ranking.

Such is the risk of absolutes...

>> "nobody is arguing that there’d be a 100% purchase rate"

The typical case against things like this does multiply downloads by sale price under the assumption each one is a lost sale. I've seen authors (obscure and prominent) scream about how many hundreds of thousands of dollars they're missing out on because they found their book on some torrent site.

Re: National Emergency Library

#53

Post by shakna »

thanksforfish wrote: post #45
shakna wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> pointing out that this will make it harder for them to eat and pay rent during the isolation period. Which makes very little sense. Royalties on books already pay out very little, and at very inconvenient timespans. It is probably not going to make any impact for most authors.

I'll try a less snarky rebuttal because I think there is a point here. Why does IA get to make that decision? I get why this has populist support, but that's not an excuse to commit piracy. I get that IA is popular, but I'd also be annoyed if a less popular company did this. If this was a government level decision to nationalize bookstores, to waive library checkout limits, then I'd understand a little more. But some…

This, is not piracy.

I do understand that it may be instinctual to leap to that position, but it isn't.

Usually, the books that appear on IA appear under the doctrine of "fair use".

However, that doctrine is adaptable to circumstances (which is actually written into the US law that governs fair use). All IA has done here, really, is suspend their waitlists, to make it more fair to the public to be able to read further, for education to continue, within a crisis.

They've also made it very clear that this is temporary. If it wasn't, you might have a case that it isn't fair use.

Part of why this falls under fair use is that their focus is on books that do not have a digital copy, apart from IA's scan, available online. This is specifically something that libraries are granted the ability to do. To scan and upload books that are not yet available.

The books that appear in this collection have been donated. However, if an authour wishes to remove their book, then there is a very simple and effective way available to them. (Linked to from the article) [0]

[0] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QjErbouWG7pUlzcxPcRk4YEt...

Re: National Emergency Library

#54

Post by [deleted] »

tingletech wrote: post #39
Rebelgecko wrote: post #8

Does anyone know how they're legally able to do this, when publishers make my local library buy a license for every concurrent copy of an ebook that someone checks out?

The Author's Guild is not impressed. https://www.authorsguild.org/industry-advocacy/internet-arch...

[deleted]

Re: National Emergency Library

#55

Post by [deleted] »

tingletech wrote: post #39
Rebelgecko wrote: post #8

Does anyone know how they're legally able to do this, when publishers make my local library buy a license for every concurrent copy of an ebook that someone checks out?

The Author's Guild is not impressed. https://www.authorsguild.org/industry-advocacy/internet-arch...

[deleted]

Re: National Emergency Library

#56

Post by toomuchtodo »

tingletech wrote: post #39
Rebelgecko wrote: post #8

Does anyone know how they're legally able to do this, when publishers make my local library buy a license for every concurrent copy of an ebook that someone checks out?

The Author's Guild is not impressed. https://www.authorsguild.org/industry-advocacy/internet-arch...

Another business that may not survive the pandemic. Poor way to spend their limited resources.

Re: National Emergency Library

#57

Post by thanksforfish »

shakna wrote: post #53
thanksforfish wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll try a less snarky rebuttal because I think there is a point here. Why does IA get to make that decision? I get why this has populist support, but that's not an excuse to commit piracy. I get that IA is popular, but I'd also be annoyed if a less popular company did this. If this was a government level decision to nationalize bookstores, to waive library checkout limits, then I'd understand a little more. But some…

This, is not piracy. I do understand that it may be instinctual to leap to that position, but it isn't. Usually, the books that appear on IA appear under the doctrine of "fair use". However, that doctrine is adaptable to circumstances (which is actually written into the US law that governs fair use). All IA has done here, really, is suspend their waitlists, to make it more fair to the public to be able to read furthe…

> actually written into the US law

Reference?

Re: National Emergency Library

#58

Post by shakna »

thanksforfish wrote: post #57
shakna wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This, is not piracy. I do understand that it may be instinctual to leap to that position, but it isn't. Usually, the books that appear on IA appear under the doctrine of "fair use". However, that doctrine is adaptable to circumstances (which is actually written into the US law that governs fair use). All IA has done here, really, is suspend their waitlists, to make it more fair to the public to be able to read furthe…

> actually written into the US law Reference?

There are four considerations for fair use, the 1st, and 4th, both rely on the current context, and allow for different interpretations based on the current climate.

> 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

The purpose, in this case, is nonprofit educational purposes during a crisis. Such a purpose is generally looked upon more favourably, as it is presented as a humanitarian gesture in a time of crisis.

> 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

During a crisis, a temporary, and very clearly temporary and short-term, effort is unlikely to have an effect on the potential value of a copyrighted work.

As IA have aimed this collection at education it's probably also worth including:

> such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means ... teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

[0] All quotes come from Section 107, of the US Copyright Code.

Re: National Emergency Library

#59

Post by efreak »

sp332 wrote: post #47
Rebelgecko wrote: post #8

Does anyone know how they're legally able to do this, when publishers make my local library buy a license for every concurrent copy of an ebook that someone checks out?

All digital lending has been legally dubious since the ReDigi case decided that sending someone a digital file counted as making a new copy. So far, the whole idea of lending exists in a gray area where publishers have simply decided not to sue. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/03/internet-archive...

> All digital lending has been legally dubious since the ReDigi case decided that sending someone a digital file counted as making a new copy. So far, the whole idea of lending exists in a gray area where publishers have simply decided not to sue. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/03/internet-archive....

Anyone else interested in this ReDigi case (I was) can check out the following pages:

https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/digital/copyrig...

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/16...

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/business/media/redigi-los...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_LLC_v._ReDi....

More recent news:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181217/17092841253/appea...

https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/12/copyright-doctrine-copy...

PDF: https://patentlyo.com/media/2018/12/16-2321_opn1.pdf

The 2000 mp3.com lawsuit is also interesting, though it didn't involve sharing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/06/technology/mp3com-loses-c...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMG_Recordings,_Inc._v._MP3.....

The lawsuit(s?) against Google's book scanning program are also interesting; I believe there was a discussion regarding this on HN somewhat recently, though I may be wrong

Post reply on HN