The Internet Archive has lost its appeal in Hachette vs. Internet Archive • Hacker News Board

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

#841

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Sep 10, 2024, 1:14 PM UTC

BlueTemplar wrote: post #825

tptacek wrote: post #680

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not "assumed" to be making a copy. It clearly is making a copy. Nerds like us want there to be a special kind of copy that doesn't "count" under copyright law, to facilitate things like CDL. But there isn't, and the courts are the wrong place to look for it. Go get a new Copyright Act passed.

Since this is hn, I'm going to be pedantic and somewhat offtopic. :) There are special kinds of copies that specifically don't count under copyright law : basically anything "cached", be it in RAM, browser caches, or similar.

[deleted]

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

#842

Post by vel0city » Tue, Sep 10, 2024, 9:05 PM UTC

sam0x17 wrote: post #839

vel0city wrote: post #691

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I also think a sane interpretation of fair use would be that the scan is a new / derivative work that is transformative The creative part being protected by copyright are the words, not the physical pages. You're not transforming the words; you're transforming the paper to bitmaps. All the words and concepts within them are the same. It's not transformative in the same way ripping a CD to an MP3 isn't transformativ…

> if I change the font for an ebook, have I meaningfully transformed it? Change one pixel and imo yes

How is a single pixel of difference in potentially hundreds of pages of text a meaningful change? It isn't changing the characters or story itself in the slightest.

Please, defend that point as an actual argument that it's then somehow fair use to change one pixel of an ebook and have it be a meaningfully different work.

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

#843

Post by freejazz » Wed, Sep 11, 2024, 2:48 AM UTC

Thiez wrote: post #779

freejazz wrote: post #728

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make him into a martyr because you agree. The other characterization is he's someone standing for theft. I don't see how one can reasonably apply your perspective to problems or disputes in the world. He's good because he's an idealist without regard? Yawn.

Copyright infringement is not, nor has it ever been, theft. Why would you push that absurd publisher propaganda?

It certainly is when you knowingly use someone's work without compensating them for it when you are required to by law. Acting like it isn't because it's an intangible thing is a semantic point and not the political statement you are making it out to be.

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

#844

Post by rockskon » Fri, Sep 13, 2024, 6:27 PM UTC

BlueTemplar wrote: post #832

rockskon wrote: post #767

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It puzzles me to hear of these "degradation" arguments, as if it isn't common to find perfectly readable books over 100 years old in antique shops. "Degradation" is the conception publishers want to think of applying to their goods. Because they want an income stream worthy of items that perish in a matter of years, not decades or centuries.

I generally agree, but I'm not sure that your example works : it smells of survivorship bias (or whatever is the equivalent name for objects rather than people?)

Books do not biodegrade in a timeline we'll ever see in our lives unless there's water damage. Which is relatively rare.

It is very much not uncommon to see books several decades old in libraries. And I suppose it is survivorship bias in the most literal sense, but that's because there's so many survivors. It's practically the rule.

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

#845

Post by immibis » Sun, Sep 15, 2024, 3:10 PM UTC

alexey-salmin wrote: post #428

SAI_Peregrinus wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That hypothetical device does not exist, it's not relevant here.

It does exist, it's called FPV arm robot. Drive around the library, take books from shelves, open them, turn pages, read. Would be curious to try this because the "ebooks don't wear" argument won't apply.

There was a company that allowed customers to rent DVD players, robotically inserted disks into them and transmitted their video output over the internet.

This was ruled illegal.

The letter of the law isn't the real law; the real law is that you must pay money to large media corporations or else. We now have two instances.

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

#846

Post by immibis » Mon, Sep 16, 2024, 7:17 PM UTC

creer wrote: post #287

tptacek wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know, but anybody who wasn't doing anything and wasn't standing to do anything was more valuable to digital rights than the people who appealed this case to the 2nd Circuit, in that none of them actually damaged digital rights.

I don't know. From the point of view of the appeal and mechanical precedent specifically, maybe, maybe not. At first read, the decision rationale seems somewhat measured and interesting - it doesn't just say "Declined". And meanwhile, IA kept the issue present and discussed and with some attempt at doing something different - even in the appeal.

It was ruled illegal when they did it with DVDs

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

#847

Post by BlueTemplar » Tue, Sep 17, 2024, 6:52 AM UTC

rockskon wrote: post #844

BlueTemplar wrote: post #832

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I generally agree, but I'm not sure that your example works : it smells of survivorship bias (or whatever is the equivalent name for objects rather than people?)

Books do not biodegrade in a timeline we'll ever see in our lives unless there's water damage. Which is relatively rare. It is very much not uncommon to see books several decades old in libraries. And I suppose it is survivorship bias in the most literal sense, but that's because there's so many survivors . It's practically the rule.

Don't they ? I have books printed in the last half of the 20th century where I'm starting to get worried about the yellowing of the pages (and the seemingly degrading structural integrity of the pages).

I've heard it was something about acidic paper (with it also being a plague of cheap printing, while being much less of an issue of expensive printing techniques).

(«several decades old» is a low bar...)

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

#848

Post by _DeadFred_ » Wed, Sep 18, 2024, 6:46 PM UTC

speedchess wrote: post #759

_DeadFred_ wrote: post #738

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Bob puts in labour in order to make financial gain, and Tom takes the fruit of Bob's labour without paying what Bob has set the work of his labour as being worth.

But Bob was paid. That's the point. Also most of 'intellectual' property is owned by corporations, not the creators. If Bob prints a book and you take it without paying for it, that's stealing. If Bob prints a book and you buy it from Bob and you make copies of it and give it to your friends, that isn't stealing. And it shouldn't be classified as stealing, morally or legally. The only reason it is considered illegal…

Bob's pay rate was agreed upon based on getting X number of sales, not one book.

You are promoting the parasiting off Bobs labor. You can try to justify it, but Bob worked expecting to get paid from those transactions, and they were taken away away because it was technologically easy to do. Bob/society expected payment to occur.