Archive.org Seeks Summary Judgment in Lawsuit Filed by Publishing Companies(blog.archive.org)
blog.archive.org
Archive.org Seeks Summary Judgment in Lawsuit Filed by Publishing Companies
https://blog.archive.org/2022/07/08/internet-archive-seeks-summary-judgment-in-federal-lawsuit-filed-by-publishing-companies/
130 comments
Huh, seeing their full argument written out makes the temporary CDL policy make a lot more sense.
They were already contracting with other libraries to increase the amount of out-of-circulation copies they could lend, and with 90,000 libraries closed they assumed removing any restrictions would still keep them well under the amount of out-of-circulation copies available.
And they were likely right, if "The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe" only had 888 lends at most a few books would reach anywhere near the total out-of-circulation copies. It makes the publishers argument look less like "we were robbed" and more like "we should have made even more cash off the pandemic."
They were already contracting with other libraries to increase the amount of out-of-circulation copies they could lend, and with 90,000 libraries closed they assumed removing any restrictions would still keep them well under the amount of out-of-circulation copies available.
And they were likely right, if "The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe" only had 888 lends at most a few books would reach anywhere near the total out-of-circulation copies. It makes the publishers argument look less like "we were robbed" and more like "we should have made even more cash off the pandemic."
Compare to Aereo which was leasing subscribers a dedicated antenna and DVR to distribute OTA television.
Except libraries have special carve-outs for copyright, while the communications act requires broadcaster consent for "multichannel video programming distributors."
Ultimately the lesson of Aereo is that it is incredibly difficult to predict court rulings when in anything close to a gray area. Aereo had a viable case after the Fox v. Cablevision precedent, but ultimately lost.
Ultimately the lesson of Aereo is that it is incredibly difficult to predict court rulings when in anything close to a gray area. Aereo had a viable case after the Fox v. Cablevision precedent, but ultimately lost.
[deleted]
[deleted]
And famously lost in the Supreme Court: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Broadcasting_Cos.,_In....
So they let people borrow as many books as they wanted which obviously violates copyright law but accidentally this didn't surpass the number of available books and this makes the whole thing legal? Bold strategy.
Since when does letting people borrow books from a library violate copyright law?
I could go up to my local library with a dump truck and load it up with books if I wanted to, I'm not making copies, so I'm not violating copyright, period. Copyright protects the publisher's ability to proliferate the stock of books, not to police the use of existing stock.
I could go up to my local library with a dump truck and load it up with books if I wanted to, I'm not making copies, so I'm not violating copyright, period. Copyright protects the publisher's ability to proliferate the stock of books, not to police the use of existing stock.
The GP was referring to the fact that Archive.org let, in principle, an unlimited number of people borrow the same book. A library has a limited number of copies of a book, so if a million people come in and want to borrow it, only X will get to. Archive.org would have served a million copies of that book according to the emergency policy.
Now, as far as I understand, it happened that no book was likely borrowed more times than the number of physical copies held by archive.org + the libraries they had partenere with. But the process they normally had in place to prevent this was explicitly decided to be ignored during the pandemic.
Now, as far as I understand, it happened that no book was likely borrowed more times than the number of physical copies held by archive.org + the libraries they had partenere with. But the process they normally had in place to prevent this was explicitly decided to be ignored during the pandemic.
> Archive.org would have served a million copies of that book according to the emergency policy.
Does it matter what they might have done under different circumstances?
Even if they weren't checking the limits, if they got lucky and never exceeded the number of copies they had licenses to share, then how did they infringe anyone's copyright?
Does it matter what they might have done under different circumstances?
Even if they weren't checking the limits, if they got lucky and never exceeded the number of copies they had licenses to share, then how did they infringe anyone's copyright?
>it happened that no book was likely borrowed more times than the number of physical copies held by archive.org + the libraries they had partenere with.
This is not their argument. They previously had libraries offer copies of books, but during the time of crisis they decided to act quickly to repace the 650 million books now out-of-circulation. Only around a hundred libraries signed on on support.
I can understand the argument as for why the IA shouldn't have done this, but agree with the IA that in these unique circumstances it should be fair use. Either way, the lawsuit is about ending the entire CDL policy, not the short term change.
This is not their argument. They previously had libraries offer copies of books, but during the time of crisis they decided to act quickly to repace the 650 million books now out-of-circulation. Only around a hundred libraries signed on on support.
I can understand the argument as for why the IA shouldn't have done this, but agree with the IA that in these unique circumstances it should be fair use. Either way, the lawsuit is about ending the entire CDL policy, not the short term change.
There is an anachronism were the following circumstances collide:
- lending is limited to the original bought copies (a library cannot create more copies of a book for further lending)
- digital lending requires sending the data to another device creating a copy
- digital lending has near-zero marginal cost (specially at scale)
- digital borrowing has near-zero marginal cost (no library membership, single click borrowing for some minutes or some hours with single click return)
IMHO I think Archive is legally in the right and it is only due to the previous circumstances, Archive.org collaborating with _a lot_ of libraries, and the tension between the older/traditional socialist/communal lending practice vs newer/contemporary private property laws that allows this conflict to emerge.
- lending is limited to the original bought copies (a library cannot create more copies of a book for further lending)
- digital lending requires sending the data to another device creating a copy
- digital lending has near-zero marginal cost (specially at scale)
- digital borrowing has near-zero marginal cost (no library membership, single click borrowing for some minutes or some hours with single click return)
IMHO I think Archive is legally in the right and it is only due to the previous circumstances, Archive.org collaborating with _a lot_ of libraries, and the tension between the older/traditional socialist/communal lending practice vs newer/contemporary private property laws that allows this conflict to emerge.
Its a factor of 1:1 or 1:many scaling.
Except it isn't. Every time a book was digitally lent, it became inaccessible to anyone else. A digital lend is the same as a physical lend. They didn't copy any books.
The borrowing feature is an amazing way of working around utterly broken copyright law, which is in its current form more or less a tax and brake on scientific and cultural progress.
From the internet archive I can now search through and read 60-year-old self-published technical manuals, obscure Hungarian journal papers, historical archival material only kept in one French museum, soviet math and physics textbooks, etc. which is difficult or expensive to find physical copies of, and not being published and distributed anymore.
Even better, people can use those links as sources in their own work (e.g. in Wikipedia articles) and anyone else interested can follow-up with original sources instead of just taking things on faith because the references are too much bother to track down.
All of this material from the past ~century is otherwise locked away by copyright law even though nobody was making any money from it.
From the internet archive I can now search through and read 60-year-old self-published technical manuals, obscure Hungarian journal papers, historical archival material only kept in one French museum, soviet math and physics textbooks, etc. which is difficult or expensive to find physical copies of, and not being published and distributed anymore.
Even better, people can use those links as sources in their own work (e.g. in Wikipedia articles) and anyone else interested can follow-up with original sources instead of just taking things on faith because the references are too much bother to track down.
All of this material from the past ~century is otherwise locked away by copyright law even though nobody was making any money from it.
> The borrowing feature is an amazing way of working around utterly broken copyright law
If lending had exceeded the number of available purchased/physical copies, then it wouldn't be "working around", it would be "violating" copyright law. I agree with you that copyright law is horribly broken as-is, but I think it's irresponsible of the Internet Archive to play so fast and loose with it. A monetary judgment against them could be devastating to their effort to preserve history.
If lending had exceeded the number of available purchased/physical copies, then it wouldn't be "working around", it would be "violating" copyright law. I agree with you that copyright law is horribly broken as-is, but I think it's irresponsible of the Internet Archive to play so fast and loose with it. A monetary judgment against them could be devastating to their effort to preserve history.
If lending had exceeded the number of available purchased/physical copies, then it wouldn't be "working around", it would be "violating" copyright law
But wouldn't it be up to the claimant to show this actually happened? So far I have seen no credible evidence for this claim.
But wouldn't it be up to the claimant to show this actually happened? So far I have seen no credible evidence for this claim.
Archive.org directly states that it did not happen.
Where? I completely agree with IA's argument that the emergency library was legal, but even they say that it temporarily removed the 1-1 lending ratio on books.
They removed the software limitation, but say that the number of books lent never actually exceeded the number of books their partners had.
Where? The judgment says that the number of books loaned never exceeded the amount out of circulation due to the pandemic, but it does not say it never exceeded the 1-1 ratio.
> but I think it's irresponsible of the Internet Archive to play so fast and loose with it
I don’t think that they did. But for the sake of discussion, I also don’t think it’s irresponsible. If copyright law is horribly broken (I agree), the most likely remedy is in court. You can’t get to that remedy with a case which has a reasonable chance of success if you don’t take that chance.
I don’t think that they did. But for the sake of discussion, I also don’t think it’s irresponsible. If copyright law is horribly broken (I agree), the most likely remedy is in court. You can’t get to that remedy with a case which has a reasonable chance of success if you don’t take that chance.
So you're saying that challenging copyright law by breaking it is worth the (IMO fairly probable) possibility of being hit with a fine that could destroy IA's ability to continue their primary mission of preserving digital and physical history?
I really just cannot agree with that. IA shouldn't be broadly challenging copyright law; at most they should be challenging laws that interfere with their primary mission.
I really just cannot agree with that. IA shouldn't be broadly challenging copyright law; at most they should be challenging laws that interfere with their primary mission.
> I think it's irresponsible of the Internet Archive to play so fast and loose with it.
That's what I think too. Despite what the HN hivemind wants to think, this was a crystal clear act of piracy and the Internet Archive will suffer for it. I have no idea what they were thinking. They would need to demonstrate they had a strict license counting system in place where libraries put in what they had and the system counted how much it borrowed which clearly they didn't have , they just said "go ahead and borrow". Say, they borrowed out 10 copies of a work at a time, this would be allowed if they had 10 licenses of it and if they can't show they had it which I bet dollars to doughnuts they didn't then they will be forced to damages for each of those. I do not even know where the damages will stop. This will be a terrible massacre.
Dura lex, sed lex!
The judge will throw out the argument "there was in theory this many copies or even more at closed libraries" -- just because it is true, the law simply doesn't allow for this.
I only wish the best for IA but they completely botched this. I can't understand how, they have good lawyers.
Hell, https://controlleddigitallending.org/ only dares to say
> When CDL is appropriately tailored to reflect print book market conditions and controls are properly implemented, CDL may be permissible under existing copyright law.
It does not say "it is".
Ps. if you are downvoting for this, where am I wrong? Where is this allowed in the Berne Convention or US Code 17? What do you think applies here if not https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/108 ?
> Except as otherwise provided in this title and notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archives, or any of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work,
No more than one copy. Go ahead, show me the carve out for, I dunno, inaccessible works or something that overrides this. This is the law, your preferences -- which are the same as mine which loves the Internet Archive and doesn't much book publishers -- have zero relevance here. You downvote because you don't like what I say or think that I want harm for the IA and it's not true -- but they will suffer for this. How can you not see this?
That's what I think too. Despite what the HN hivemind wants to think, this was a crystal clear act of piracy and the Internet Archive will suffer for it. I have no idea what they were thinking. They would need to demonstrate they had a strict license counting system in place where libraries put in what they had and the system counted how much it borrowed which clearly they didn't have , they just said "go ahead and borrow". Say, they borrowed out 10 copies of a work at a time, this would be allowed if they had 10 licenses of it and if they can't show they had it which I bet dollars to doughnuts they didn't then they will be forced to damages for each of those. I do not even know where the damages will stop. This will be a terrible massacre.
Dura lex, sed lex!
The judge will throw out the argument "there was in theory this many copies or even more at closed libraries" -- just because it is true, the law simply doesn't allow for this.
I only wish the best for IA but they completely botched this. I can't understand how, they have good lawyers.
Hell, https://controlleddigitallending.org/ only dares to say
> When CDL is appropriately tailored to reflect print book market conditions and controls are properly implemented, CDL may be permissible under existing copyright law.
It does not say "it is".
Ps. if you are downvoting for this, where am I wrong? Where is this allowed in the Berne Convention or US Code 17? What do you think applies here if not https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/108 ?
> Except as otherwise provided in this title and notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archives, or any of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work,
No more than one copy. Go ahead, show me the carve out for, I dunno, inaccessible works or something that overrides this. This is the law, your preferences -- which are the same as mine which loves the Internet Archive and doesn't much book publishers -- have zero relevance here. You downvote because you don't like what I say or think that I want harm for the IA and it's not true -- but they will suffer for this. How can you not see this?
> They would need to demonstrate they had a strict license counting system in place where libraries put in what they had and the system counted how much it borrowed
They already do have such a system. If they "have" multiple copies of a book edition, then the "borrow" period is 14 days. If they have only one copy, then it's only one hour, so that the book remains more available to others.
This means that they are aware of how many "licences" they hold and reference count the accesses to each edition against that figure.
Whether they indeed bypassed that system for the NEL and provably allowed excessive accesses being their holdings, well, that's for the court to hear.
They already do have such a system. If they "have" multiple copies of a book edition, then the "borrow" period is 14 days. If they have only one copy, then it's only one hour, so that the book remains more available to others.
This means that they are aware of how many "licences" they hold and reference count the accesses to each edition against that figure.
Whether they indeed bypassed that system for the NEL and provably allowed excessive accesses being their holdings, well, that's for the court to hear.
>Whether they indeed bypassed that system for the NEL and provably allowed excessive accesses being their holdings, well, that's for the court to hear
Pretty sure this summary judgment openly admits they did.
Pretty sure this summary judgment openly admits they did.
From the summary judgement request:
> The Internet Archive’s belief that the NEL’s loaned copies would be fewer than the number of existing non-circulating physical copies proved to be correct.
So the Internet Archive claim it didn't, though it's not providing complete and concrete proof that no title went over the limit. Then again, it's on the prosecution to demonstrate that they actually did.
> The Internet Archive’s belief that the NEL’s loaned copies would be fewer than the number of existing non-circulating physical copies proved to be correct.
So the Internet Archive claim it didn't, though it's not providing complete and concrete proof that no title went over the limit. Then again, it's on the prosecution to demonstrate that they actually did.
Keep reading after that line. They're talking about the total number of out-of-circulation copies of a book in all closed US public libraries, not the ones they have the explicit right to use. And earlier they say the emergency library temporarily lifted the 1 to 1 ratio controls, which is openly admitting they did.
> Despite what the HN hivemind wants to think, this was a crystal clear act of piracy
I wasn't aware that the IA had any naval vessels.
I wasn't aware that the IA had any naval vessels.
It's not piracy if it's a naval vessel. If it's a sanctioned military action, it's "defending national interests".
>Go ahead, show me the carve out for, I dunno, inaccessible works or something that overrides this.
The IA's argument is that it's covered under section 107 as "fair use" as it's a nonprofit educational act with seemingly no negative effect on the value of the work.
You can disagree but you're tone is that you're absolutely right and anyone who doubts it is denying reality.
The IA's argument is that it's covered under section 107 as "fair use" as it's a nonprofit educational act with seemingly no negative effect on the value of the work.
You can disagree but you're tone is that you're absolutely right and anyone who doubts it is denying reality.
There is no grounds for a civil lawsuit if no damage was actually done. Furthermore, the parties bringing suit have to be the ones who were damaged.
I suppose it also makes it harder for the publishers because they now have to the homework of proving which titles would have hypothetical been over subscribed of the gazillions of books lent by archive.org and of those proof which specific publisher was damaged.
I have a car which is capable of double the maximum speed limit on any road. Should I be fined for that potential, or should violations depend only my actual speed?
It's more like if you posted on Facebook that you were going to do 120mph in your car if ten people DMed you "do it", and you didn't get ten such replies. Then being pulled over, while still under the speed limit, for speeding on that basis.
> but accidentally this didn't surpass the number of available books
I suspect that the "accidentally" should be heavily qualified. Just because Internet Archive said they were going to let anyone freely borrow books (And it never was "as much as they wanted"; there were borrowing limits on each user, enforced by strong DRM) doesn't make that true in a literal sense. The whole thing was always under their control, and they would've had the stats telling them how much each book was being borrowed.
I suspect that the "accidentally" should be heavily qualified. Just because Internet Archive said they were going to let anyone freely borrow books (And it never was "as much as they wanted"; there were borrowing limits on each user, enforced by strong DRM) doesn't make that true in a literal sense. The whole thing was always under their control, and they would've had the stats telling them how much each book was being borrowed.
For non lawyers: a request for summary judgment is something any lawyer will do, possibly multiple times in a case. And the vast majority of the time, they’re denied. It does not mean that their case is a slam dunk or anything; just that they want the judge to prematurely end the matter in their favor.
It’s almost a useless motion, but because it has worked sometimes, your lawyer would be stupid to not try it.
In other words, an article saying that a party requested summary judgment doesn’t really mean anything. I’m almost certain the other party filed one as well.
It’s almost a useless motion, but because it has worked sometimes, your lawyer would be stupid to not try it.
In other words, an article saying that a party requested summary judgment doesn’t really mean anything. I’m almost certain the other party filed one as well.
According to a 2006 study of Federal district courts,
> Summary judgment motions are filed in fewer cases than the bench and bar might expect. They are filed in approximately 13.7% of cases, with this proportion varying between 9.7% and 22% depending on the district. Thus, summary judgment motions are not filed in every case in the federal courts, as it sometimes seems to judges and lawyers
[1] https://iaals.du.edu/sites/default/files/documents/publicati...
EDIT: Correction, study published in 2018 of cases closed in 2015. Not sure where 2006 came from....
> Summary judgment motions are filed in fewer cases than the bench and bar might expect. They are filed in approximately 13.7% of cases, with this proportion varying between 9.7% and 22% depending on the district. Thus, summary judgment motions are not filed in every case in the federal courts, as it sometimes seems to judges and lawyers
[1] https://iaals.du.edu/sites/default/files/documents/publicati...
EDIT: Correction, study published in 2018 of cases closed in 2015. Not sure where 2006 came from....
So many cases in the legal profession are settled out of court almost immediately, I wouldn't take many statistics like this at face value.
Once you filter out the majority of legal cases that accrue, say, less than a thousand total billable hours, I imagine filing summary judgements in these "serious" cases is quite common.
Once you filter out the majority of legal cases that accrue, say, less than a thousand total billable hours, I imagine filing summary judgements in these "serious" cases is quite common.
In this particular instance though, a the summary judgement ruling is pretty much going to be what the whole case is about. A trial would be to determine the facts of the case, like "Did archive.org distribute copies of books?", and there's really no question about that. A summary judgement asks the question "Assume we did what the plaintiff says we did, do we have a right to do that anyway?". And that's really the only question this case will answer.
That's not entirely true I don't think?
A jury trial determines facts, but a bench trial can still occur.The difference between a bench trail is things like discovery, which can be enormously expensive.
A jury trial determines facts, but a bench trial can still occur.The difference between a bench trail is things like discovery, which can be enormously expensive.
They did, and it's to prevent the Archive from lending out digital copies at all. https://www.eff.org/document/hachette-v-internet-archive-hac...
A summary judgement can also be strategically useful as it tends to force the other party to spell out their legal arguments in detail earlier in the case. Even if the SJ is denied it can be beneficial in targeting discovery requests.
[deleted](1)
It’s said that it avoids objections of inadequate counseling at a higher court. How true is that?
That doesn’t sound “American”legal.
In the US, summary judgment is a procedure used in civil cases, typically one party seeking money from the other. Ineffective assistance of counsel is a criminal concept.
In the US, summary judgment is a procedure used in civil cases, typically one party seeking money from the other. Ineffective assistance of counsel is a criminal concept.
Not for civil cases. To win on summary judgment, there essentially has to be no genuine dispute of facts. So you often do not bother filing for summary judgment.
It's more appropriate when the dispute can be decided on purely legal grounds that don't need a juries input.
It's more appropriate when the dispute can be decided on purely legal grounds that don't need a juries input.
Ah, so basically the Internet Archive is asking the judge, "hypothetically, assuming we did everything they are accusing us of, we assert that the law would still be on our side, yeah?"
Whereas if the Internet Archive suspected what they were being accused of wasn't legal, summary judgement wouldn't be appropriate, and they might want to go to trial to try to prove their case that they aren't actually doing what they're being accused of?
Whereas if the Internet Archive suspected what they were being accused of wasn't legal, summary judgement wouldn't be appropriate, and they might want to go to trial to try to prove their case that they aren't actually doing what they're being accused of?
It's not quite so far as "assuming," but pretty much.
There is no point in a summary judgement in a "he said she said" or when there is conflicting evidence.
There is no point in a summary judgement in a "he said she said" or when there is conflicting evidence.
I think that the Internet Archive is one of the greatest libraries of human knowledge and internet culture in the world. Next to resources such as the Library Genesis, Sci-Hub, and probably the Wikipedia, these together might be the most important collections of human knowledge in the world.
There's almost no-one else who has an incentive to archive that kind of information, if there isn't an economic incentive. And as soon as those primary sources go bankrupt, there's no-one to keep that data available.
So I realize that this is a thorn to publishers, but I think that the interests of humanity far outweigh their personal financial incentives.
I applaud all those, who put themselves into the line of fire of those who just care about themselves, rather than the goal to preseve the wealth of human knowledge. So thank you, to all of those who do, even in light of all the difficulties it might cause in your lives.
Edit: I see these libraries similar to the library of Alexandria, which burnt down around 48 bc. People nowadays have the ability to preserve that knowledge, with equipment that isn't unattainable to the general public (especially with distributed storage). Not everyone, but a huge number of people can now prevent the next burning down of the biggest library in the world. And I think that's a great thing.
There's almost no-one else who has an incentive to archive that kind of information, if there isn't an economic incentive. And as soon as those primary sources go bankrupt, there's no-one to keep that data available.
So I realize that this is a thorn to publishers, but I think that the interests of humanity far outweigh their personal financial incentives.
I applaud all those, who put themselves into the line of fire of those who just care about themselves, rather than the goal to preseve the wealth of human knowledge. So thank you, to all of those who do, even in light of all the difficulties it might cause in your lives.
Edit: I see these libraries similar to the library of Alexandria, which burnt down around 48 bc. People nowadays have the ability to preserve that knowledge, with equipment that isn't unattainable to the general public (especially with distributed storage). Not everyone, but a huge number of people can now prevent the next burning down of the biggest library in the world. And I think that's a great thing.
I find amusement in how the three big "knowledge for all" organizations are perfectly distributed along the D&D alignment 'law' axis (taken literally):
- Wikimedia (“a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge”): lawful – religious copyright law adherence, thorough fair use rationales; proactively removes Het Achterhuis from Wikisource over DMCA "actual knowledge" of it being copyrighted in the US through an obscure series of laws[1]
- Internet Archive (“Universal Access to All Knowledge”): neutral – gets archival exemption for bypassing copy protection added to the DMCA;[2][3] making archived items publicly available lies in a grey area
- Sci-Hub (“free and unrestricted access to all scientific knowledge”): chaotic – just pirate all the paywalled articles
[1] https://diff.wikimedia.org/2016/02/10/anne-frank-diary-remov...
[2] https://archive.org/about/dmca.php
[3] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2010/07/27/2010-18...
- Wikimedia (“a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge”): lawful – religious copyright law adherence, thorough fair use rationales; proactively removes Het Achterhuis from Wikisource over DMCA "actual knowledge" of it being copyrighted in the US through an obscure series of laws[1]
- Internet Archive (“Universal Access to All Knowledge”): neutral – gets archival exemption for bypassing copy protection added to the DMCA;[2][3] making archived items publicly available lies in a grey area
- Sci-Hub (“free and unrestricted access to all scientific knowledge”): chaotic – just pirate all the paywalled articles
[1] https://diff.wikimedia.org/2016/02/10/anne-frank-diary-remov...
[2] https://archive.org/about/dmca.php
[3] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2010/07/27/2010-18...
Presumably in fact Lawful Good, Neutral Good, and Chaotic Good, respectively.
I totally agree and can only recommend donating to Archive: https://archive.org/donate/
Similar to Wikipedia/Wikimedia, in my opinion they need support.
Why I love archive.org? I downloaded lots of old manuals from ancient computers for personal pleasure. Thank you archive.org!
Similar to Wikipedia/Wikimedia, in my opinion they need support.
Why I love archive.org? I downloaded lots of old manuals from ancient computers for personal pleasure. Thank you archive.org!
> Similar to Wikipedia/Wikimedia, in my opinion they need support.
The WMF has a 9 figure surplus, they have far more money then they can use (despite the begging banners implying they're on the brink). The Internet Archive is a far more useful donation.
The WMF has a 9 figure surplus, they have far more money then they can use (despite the begging banners implying they're on the brink). The Internet Archive is a far more useful donation.
[deleted]
I've used the IA library a few times, sometimes for textbooks. I wonder if the publishers aren't just trying to do this in the name of keeping control of their lucrative student textbook market (a lot of textbooks can be loaned out via IA, and they're all ridiculously overpriced, i.e. $150 for a book that has minimal value and yet is required to complete the coursework).
It's really kind of pathetic, all the mechanisms the system has created to extract wealth from students and their parents. If you wanted to create evidence for the argument that investment capitalism is essentially parasitic, the whole 'higher education' program we've got in the USA could well be Exhibit A (Exhibit B being the health care program).
It's really kind of pathetic, all the mechanisms the system has created to extract wealth from students and their parents. If you wanted to create evidence for the argument that investment capitalism is essentially parasitic, the whole 'higher education' program we've got in the USA could well be Exhibit A (Exhibit B being the health care program).
Textbooks are such a racket. Way overpriced for what they are, and then the resale market is often nonexistent, as new editions (which add/change very little, but professors will end up requiring) come out all the time and make the older ones worth nothing.
I was poor in college, and couldn't afford the (up to) $250 per textbook. So, I cheated.
I found the previous edition for cheap on Amazon, and looked up answers to the work sections on some cheating sites. I didn't do it for the answers, though; I did it to reverse-engineer the new question numbers. As in, the only difference between a $40 book and a $250 book was that the publisher had randomized the question order in the work sections.
The worst one by far was one I could only find in Mandarin. Google Translate helped a ton, but it was missing about half of the questions, so I ended up photocopying part of a classmate's textbook to get them. This actually landed me in the Dean's office; apparently our library had a strict policy prohibiting the photocopying of textbooks. Luckily the dean was understanding, but I'll never forget the lesson: capitalism is a fucking bitch sometimes, and to play clean you have to be willing to get dirty.
I found the previous edition for cheap on Amazon, and looked up answers to the work sections on some cheating sites. I didn't do it for the answers, though; I did it to reverse-engineer the new question numbers. As in, the only difference between a $40 book and a $250 book was that the publisher had randomized the question order in the work sections.
The worst one by far was one I could only find in Mandarin. Google Translate helped a ton, but it was missing about half of the questions, so I ended up photocopying part of a classmate's textbook to get them. This actually landed me in the Dean's office; apparently our library had a strict policy prohibiting the photocopying of textbooks. Luckily the dean was understanding, but I'll never forget the lesson: capitalism is a fucking bitch sometimes, and to play clean you have to be willing to get dirty.
Any university where the "teaching" involves just answering questions in a book you can just buy is a scam. I can get that for, at most, the cost of the book on my own. I don't need to pay 4-6 figures for that as well as still buying the book.
I don't think I ever was assigned to answer questions from a published textbook for credit at university. If we had such question-based assignments, the questions were written by the lecturer to fit the course material.
We were recommended to get certain books, but they were never required to complete the course.
I don't think I ever was assigned to answer questions from a published textbook for credit at university. If we had such question-based assignments, the questions were written by the lecturer to fit the course material.
We were recommended to get certain books, but they were never required to complete the course.
> Luckily the dean was understanding
Actual educators probably hate this shit almost as much as students do. Unauthorized learning should be not a punishable offense. I assume the professors who insist on the newest editions of textbooks are either getting kickbacks (certainly true when they wrote the book) or they were forced to by the school's policy and someone higher up is getting paid by publishers.
Actual educators probably hate this shit almost as much as students do. Unauthorized learning should be not a punishable offense. I assume the professors who insist on the newest editions of textbooks are either getting kickbacks (certainly true when they wrote the book) or they were forced to by the school's policy and someone higher up is getting paid by publishers.
> * assume the professors who insist on the newest editions of textbooks are either getting kickbacks [...] or they were forced to by the school's policy and someone higher up is getting paid by publishers.*
Or maybe for logistical reasons? The latest edition will of course be easily available (though expensive). Older editions might not be easy to come by. And allowing any old edition would mean it wouldn't be possible to assign exercises from the book, since the might differ in subtle ways, or just have a different order. While these problems aren't insurmountable, they would make things much more difficult.
Or maybe for logistical reasons? The latest edition will of course be easily available (though expensive). Older editions might not be easy to come by. And allowing any old edition would mean it wouldn't be possible to assign exercises from the book, since the might differ in subtle ways, or just have a different order. While these problems aren't insurmountable, they would make things much more difficult.
They could use a different texbook that doesn't pull this kind of bs or even not use a textbook at all. I never needed a single textbook for University (CS degree in Germany) - lectures typically had the professor's manuscript that you could buy for pretty much cost-to-print or just download as a PDF somewhere or you could just take notes in lectures. Exercise questions were provided directly and for most courses not even part of the final grade anyway.
Making students pay a high tuition fee and then still making them buy additional material needed for the course is insane. It really doesn't have to be this way.
Making students pay a high tuition fee and then still making them buy additional material needed for the course is insane. It really doesn't have to be this way.
> If you wanted to create evidence for the argument that investment capitalism is essentially parasitic, the whole 'higher education' program we've got in the USA could well be Exhibit A
Copyright law itself is a prime example of how allowing greed to go unchecked is hurting us all. It started out as a great idea, but it's been perverted into something that does the literal opposite of what it was put in place to accomplish. Copyright law today hurts creators, and impedes innovation and the creation of new creative works while heavily and increasingly restricting the public's access to existing works.
Sadly our politicians are even less willing to reform copyright law than they are to place limits on the greed that's allowed to hurt us collectively in the higher education system. At least students today are getting ineffectual lip service about student loan forgiveness.
Copyright law itself is a prime example of how allowing greed to go unchecked is hurting us all. It started out as a great idea, but it's been perverted into something that does the literal opposite of what it was put in place to accomplish. Copyright law today hurts creators, and impedes innovation and the creation of new creative works while heavily and increasingly restricting the public's access to existing works.
Sadly our politicians are even less willing to reform copyright law than they are to place limits on the greed that's allowed to hurt us collectively in the higher education system. At least students today are getting ineffectual lip service about student loan forgiveness.
A lot of people seem to have some confusion about what this lawsuit is about. This is not just a lawsuit about the NEL (National Emergency Library) initiative (which stands on shakier ground), but about the whole concept of CDL (Controlled Digital Lending).
Publishers are trying to use ebooks to accomplish their long standing goal of collecting revenue each time a book is lent by a library. They have tried to get this added to copyright law for physical books by Congress multiple times and have failed.
Large publishers refuse to sell libraries ebooks that can be lent out over and over, preferring instead to license ebooks with a limited number of lends or a fee per lend.
With CDL, libraries scan their own physical books, remove those books from circulation, and lend that digital copy to one user (per book they own that is not circulating.)
While publishers like to claim that CDL is an obvious copyright violation, it is untested legal ground as to whether CDL qualifies as fair use or not.
To me, the ideal outcome is that courts uphold CDL as fair use, but holds the IA responsible for playing fast and loose with the NEL program.
Publishers are trying to use ebooks to accomplish their long standing goal of collecting revenue each time a book is lent by a library. They have tried to get this added to copyright law for physical books by Congress multiple times and have failed.
Large publishers refuse to sell libraries ebooks that can be lent out over and over, preferring instead to license ebooks with a limited number of lends or a fee per lend.
With CDL, libraries scan their own physical books, remove those books from circulation, and lend that digital copy to one user (per book they own that is not circulating.)
While publishers like to claim that CDL is an obvious copyright violation, it is untested legal ground as to whether CDL qualifies as fair use or not.
To me, the ideal outcome is that courts uphold CDL as fair use, but holds the IA responsible for playing fast and loose with the NEL program.
The document argues that the NEL was fair use in IV. B. Here is part of what they say:
>In those unique circumstances, the Internet Archive reasoned that the technical controls limiting the number of concurrent lends to the number of non-circulating copies Internet Archive or its partner libraries had on hand was not necessary. Id. ¶ 71. Given the massive number of books sitting idle on library shelves, doing so would not increase the number of copies of books in circulation above the number of copies libraries had bought and paid for. Id. ¶¶ 92–95. The Internet Archive still imposed the full array of other protections—lending books for limited periods, using DRM software to protect the books from being kept outside that loan period, and so on. Id. ¶¶ 34–35. And under those unique circumstances, lending books in that way was fair use. As with CDL, analysis of the data reflects that the publishers did not actually lose out on any revenues as a result of the NEL.
>In those unique circumstances, the Internet Archive reasoned that the technical controls limiting the number of concurrent lends to the number of non-circulating copies Internet Archive or its partner libraries had on hand was not necessary. Id. ¶ 71. Given the massive number of books sitting idle on library shelves, doing so would not increase the number of copies of books in circulation above the number of copies libraries had bought and paid for. Id. ¶¶ 92–95. The Internet Archive still imposed the full array of other protections—lending books for limited periods, using DRM software to protect the books from being kept outside that loan period, and so on. Id. ¶¶ 34–35. And under those unique circumstances, lending books in that way was fair use. As with CDL, analysis of the data reflects that the publishers did not actually lose out on any revenues as a result of the NEL.
This is a good summary.
One other thing to note is that not all publishers are like the big 4-5. Many mid level and smaller publishers will sell libraries perpetual single use or sim use copies, sometimes after an embargo period.
One other thing to note is that not all publishers are like the big 4-5. Many mid level and smaller publishers will sell libraries perpetual single use or sim use copies, sometimes after an embargo period.
Normally this would be the part where I give an insightful commentary on the nature of fair use, the various carve-outs for libraries, the balance of rights, and so on... but I just got done having to torrent something I paid good money for so frankly screw the publishers.
My worry here is that judges will not see it their way, and side with the publishing companies (if not now, then perhaps on appeal). The Internet Archive could end up facing massive legal fees and monetary judgments against them, causing them to shut down. Is the risk of loss of Archive.org itself worth the benefit of having this library lending program in the first place? Would it have been possible to "firewall" the lending group into its own entity, such that the rest of Internet Archive would be protected from something legally catastrophic happening?
"Imagine there was no such thing as a library, and that members of the current neoliberal policy consensus were to sit down today and invent it. They might create complicated tax expenditures to subsidize the poor purchasing and reselling books, like the wage support of the earned income tax credit. They might require people to rent books from approved private libraries, with penalties for those who don’t and vouchers for those who can’t afford it, like the individual mandate in the latest expansion of health care. They might come up with a program where they take on liability for books that go missing from private libraries and thereby boost profits for lenders themselves, like federally backed private student loans. Or maybe they’d create means-tested libraries only accessible to the poor, with a requirement that patrons document how impoverished they are month after month to keep their library card. Maybe they’d exempt the cost of private library cards from payroll taxes, or let anything calling itself a library pay nothing in taxes."
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/citizen-coup...
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/citizen-coup...
Most of the other court documents from the case are available here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17211300/hachette-book-...
That looks like an awful lot of billable hours have gone into this useless lawsuit already. I hope the costs of this isn't hurting archive's ability to keep doing what they do.
> I hope the costs of this isn't hurting archive's ability to keep doing what they do.
It absolutely is.
I hope the board will step down after they inevitably lose this case badly.
It absolutely is.
I hope the board will step down after they inevitably lose this case badly.
That's why I choose to save the webpages as mhtml , webarchive. Then use the tools developed by myself to search, annotate, and read.
All webpages is in my nas. keep them forever.
All webpages is in my nas. keep them forever.
Are you archiving everything automatically or manually. If automatically, how so?
If you want automatic archiving, check out https://irchiver.com/ for Windows. It runs on client-side so gets an archive from your point of view, i.e. including Facebook content and partially-filled out forms, etc.
Archive.org (the Internet Archive) is doing important, critical work to build and maintain an archival copy of everything.
If you have not used the system, spend some time and discover the gems that are included in its collection. https://archive.org Offer suggestions and get involved.
On July 15th I attended the Archive Open House and spoke with Brewster about the ambitious plans through the coming year and the next few decades. There is a lot that needs to be done.
The Archive needs your moral, political, and monetary support. To donate: https://archive.org/donate .
If you have not used the system, spend some time and discover the gems that are included in its collection. https://archive.org Offer suggestions and get involved.
On July 15th I attended the Archive Open House and spoke with Brewster about the ambitious plans through the coming year and the next few decades. There is a lot that needs to be done.
The Archive needs your moral, political, and monetary support. To donate: https://archive.org/donate .
I stand with archive.org
Could they capture the contents of the process and use the results to their advantage/argument? Or would it work against them? (I’m for archive.org, just curious).
Related:
Tell HN: Internet Archive is facing a Big 4 Publishers lawsuit - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32141358 - July 2022 (209 comments)
Activists rally to save Internet Archive as lawsuit threatens site (2020) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31703394 - June 2022 (32 comments)
Help preserve the internet with Archiveteam's warrior - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30524842 - March 2022 (51 comments)
Internet Archive responds to publishers’ lawsuit - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23998115 - July 2020 (348 comments)
My thoughts in response to the lawsuit against the Internet Archive - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23931183 - July 2020 (232 comments)
EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23691297 - June 2020 (263 comments)
Activists rally to save Internet Archive as lawsuit threatens site - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23485182 - June 2020 (393 comments)
Lawsuit over online book lending could bankrupt Internet Archive - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23391662 - June 2020 (260 comments)
Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23379775 - June 2020 (346 comments)
Internet Archive responds: Why we released the National Emergency Library - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22731472 - March 2020 (145 comments)
Internet Archive’s National Emergency Library Harms Authors - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22716923 - March 2020 (48 comments)
Tell HN: Internet Archive is facing a Big 4 Publishers lawsuit - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32141358 - July 2022 (209 comments)
Activists rally to save Internet Archive as lawsuit threatens site (2020) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31703394 - June 2022 (32 comments)
Help preserve the internet with Archiveteam's warrior - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30524842 - March 2022 (51 comments)
Internet Archive responds to publishers’ lawsuit - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23998115 - July 2020 (348 comments)
My thoughts in response to the lawsuit against the Internet Archive - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23931183 - July 2020 (232 comments)
EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23691297 - June 2020 (263 comments)
Activists rally to save Internet Archive as lawsuit threatens site - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23485182 - June 2020 (393 comments)
Lawsuit over online book lending could bankrupt Internet Archive - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23391662 - June 2020 (260 comments)
Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23379775 - June 2020 (346 comments)
Internet Archive responds: Why we released the National Emergency Library - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22731472 - March 2020 (145 comments)
Internet Archive’s National Emergency Library Harms Authors - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22716923 - March 2020 (48 comments)
Dear Copyright Holders:
LeVe the Internet Archive alone.
Sincerely,
Everyone
LeVe the Internet Archive alone.
Sincerely,
Everyone
Whilst they were objectively “wrong” in their actions, what they did was clearly for the greater good. Requesting a summary judgment reminded me of that. Respect to the IA for upholding their position.
Legality and morality may be misaligned. It is important to never equate the two in a society of man made laws. This is doubly true when wealthy and powerful interests have so much ability to influence laws through legalized bribing (i.e., "lobbying").
> objectively “wrong”
How so? Can you explain?
Are libraries, too, "objectively wrong” in that analysis?
cheers
How so? Can you explain?
Are libraries, too, "objectively wrong” in that analysis?
cheers
From what I understand, they broke the terms of a legally-binding contract with the publishers. They were allowed to act as a “digital library” — and lend out copyrighted works for free — but only one “copy” of the file could be released at a time.
This makes more sense for real-world libraries (where books are physical objects with manufacturing costs) but this doesn’t really translate to digital files.
During the pandemic, when real-world libraries were shut, the Internet Archive took it upon themselves to give away an unlimited number of copyrighted works. Libraries are a net public good to society, and unexpectedly we found ourselves without them. The Internet Archive was uniquely positioned to share knowledge and educational materials with the world, free of charge, at a time when many people had no other access to them.
This makes more sense for real-world libraries (where books are physical objects with manufacturing costs) but this doesn’t really translate to digital files.
During the pandemic, when real-world libraries were shut, the Internet Archive took it upon themselves to give away an unlimited number of copyrighted works. Libraries are a net public good to society, and unexpectedly we found ourselves without them. The Internet Archive was uniquely positioned to share knowledge and educational materials with the world, free of charge, at a time when many people had no other access to them.
They do not have a contract with the publishers. Their normal CDL policy (one digital copy loaned out per physical book in the archive) is legal under fair use. The publishers also have a motion for summary judgement, which would prevent them from doing this.
The publishers would rather rent them a digital copy for a lot of money, that is either time-limited or has a cap on the total number of times it can be checked out before the Archive would have to pay again.
The publishers would rather rent them a digital copy for a lot of money, that is either time-limited or has a cap on the total number of times it can be checked out before the Archive would have to pay again.
That is a good answer
> Given the impact of the public health emergency, the Internet Archive decided to ease its book lending restrictions and allow multiple people to check out the same digital copy of a book at once.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/07/14/cucd-j14.html
Libraries can rent books they’ve purchased. Generally they can’t fire up the photocopier and make copies of books they’ve purchased.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/07/14/cucd-j14.html
Libraries can rent books they’ve purchased. Generally they can’t fire up the photocopier and make copies of books they’ve purchased.
Anecdotal, but every library I have ever been in had a copier that patrons could use to make copies of books for a couple cents per page.
Some copying is covered by fair use. Making a whole copy of a book, especially in a way that might limit the copyright owner's profits, usually doesn't count. I've seen signs in libraries like this one https://www.shopbrodart.com/Library-School-Equipment/Signage... warning about copyright infringement.
[deleted]
Those signs may seem scary, but they're just stating a basic fact that everyone already knows: If you commit copyright infringement, you have committed copyright infringement.
Likewise.
That's a relatively new development, though. Historically libraries were responsible for making copies of the works they held.
Actually, sometimes you are able to. ILL in academic libraries or special collections/archives sometimes requires doing so (e.g. because the original material is bundled in a giant 10 year journal binding). That said, legal agreements between research libraries and academic publishers are basically opaque dark magic.
When I buy a physical book, I can lend that book to a friend. I own the book.
When a library buys a physical book, they can loan that copy out to patrons. They own the physical book.
For over ten years now, libraries have taken a single physical book, scanned it and removed the book from circulation, and lent out a single ebook. This has been a common practice founded on an interpretation of fair use laws, which allow format shifting (recording a vhs to DVD, for example) and lending, and also copyright laws which explicitly mention the legality of digitizing books for accessibility reasons, to serve the visually impaired.
This "one physical book in storage equals one ebook" lending is the "controlled digital lending" the archive does, and is the issue at stake in this suit. Publishers argue that libraries should not be allowed to lend any ebook except those which they set a specific lending limit to- charging the library a fee every X number of checkouts or every X number of months.
This is obviously not how lending physical books works- the library can buy a hardcover and loan it out to patrons, repairing the spine and binding over and over, eventually moving it to a special collection for viewing on site when it's hundreds of years old and can't be handled.
As a seperate, and legally shaker issue, the internet archive created the "national emergency library" during the pandemic. The logic here was that nearly every library in the country was closed, there were within those libraries physical copies of these books that weren't being lent out, and so the same concept as controlled digital lending could apply. This move by the archive was signed onto and supported by thousands of libraries around the country, who agreed that their uncirculated physical copies could stand in for the extra copies checked out of the archives emergency library.
It's important to note the archive does not loan any book published in the last five years, period. This is a self imposed limitation that your neighborhood library does not work under, but it means that the "lost sales" publishers allege were not of new books. Nobody ever got screwed out of bestseller status because too many library patrons read their book, and that goes doubly so in this case.
All that said, the issue isn't whether the internet archive messed up with it's national emergency library. It's whether the whole concept of loaning a book is limited to printed copies, and thus ebooks must be repurchased by libraries ad nauseum-- or if libraries can keep a physical copy in a storage room and loan out a digital copy one at a time, exactly as they do now.
Bottom line, our libraries (and especially their ebook collections) will be much poorer if this decision goes to publishers.
When a library buys a physical book, they can loan that copy out to patrons. They own the physical book.
For over ten years now, libraries have taken a single physical book, scanned it and removed the book from circulation, and lent out a single ebook. This has been a common practice founded on an interpretation of fair use laws, which allow format shifting (recording a vhs to DVD, for example) and lending, and also copyright laws which explicitly mention the legality of digitizing books for accessibility reasons, to serve the visually impaired.
This "one physical book in storage equals one ebook" lending is the "controlled digital lending" the archive does, and is the issue at stake in this suit. Publishers argue that libraries should not be allowed to lend any ebook except those which they set a specific lending limit to- charging the library a fee every X number of checkouts or every X number of months.
This is obviously not how lending physical books works- the library can buy a hardcover and loan it out to patrons, repairing the spine and binding over and over, eventually moving it to a special collection for viewing on site when it's hundreds of years old and can't be handled.
As a seperate, and legally shaker issue, the internet archive created the "national emergency library" during the pandemic. The logic here was that nearly every library in the country was closed, there were within those libraries physical copies of these books that weren't being lent out, and so the same concept as controlled digital lending could apply. This move by the archive was signed onto and supported by thousands of libraries around the country, who agreed that their uncirculated physical copies could stand in for the extra copies checked out of the archives emergency library.
It's important to note the archive does not loan any book published in the last five years, period. This is a self imposed limitation that your neighborhood library does not work under, but it means that the "lost sales" publishers allege were not of new books. Nobody ever got screwed out of bestseller status because too many library patrons read their book, and that goes doubly so in this case.
All that said, the issue isn't whether the internet archive messed up with it's national emergency library. It's whether the whole concept of loaning a book is limited to printed copies, and thus ebooks must be repurchased by libraries ad nauseum-- or if libraries can keep a physical copy in a storage room and loan out a digital copy one at a time, exactly as they do now.
Bottom line, our libraries (and especially their ebook collections) will be much poorer if this decision goes to publishers.
> Publishers argue that libraries should not be allowed to lend any ebook except those which they set a specific lending limit to- charging the library a fee every X number of checkouts or every X number of months.
so this is yet another attempt at digital feudalism, where you bought something, but must pay the supplier a subscribtion or a cut forever?
so this is yet another attempt at digital feudalism, where you bought something, but must pay the supplier a subscribtion or a cut forever?
A party applies for summary judgment to be entered when, speaking in very general terms, the other side's case is not reasonably arguable. That is, no reasonable jury/judge could find for the other party.
It doesn't have anything to do with morals, it's a procedural process that avoids the need for an expensive trial to defend a hopeless claim.
Of course, a party might lose a summary judgement application but ultimately win at trial.
It doesn't have anything to do with morals, it's a procedural process that avoids the need for an expensive trial to defend a hopeless claim.
Of course, a party might lose a summary judgement application but ultimately win at trial.
The general consensus I’ve read on HN is that the IA is pretty clearly guilty. But they’re the ones seeking the summary judgment in their own favour. Hence I respect their position, for taking a moral stance despite not having much of a legal leg to stand on.
HN is generally a bad predictor of what courts will do.
Piracy isn't for the greater good. Copyright is.
Well, that’s very much debatable:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_copyright
http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.ht...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_copyright
http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.ht...
There's a strong argument that copyright is no longer a net good.
Copyright's value proposition is providing a monetization framework by allowing people to prevent others from sharing. Its only function is to limit creating copies. This made sense in the days of the printing press.
Nowadays we have many other monetization models which aren't predicated on limiting sharing. Many large and in some case (open source) leading systems are built on these non-restrictive models.
I think the negative aspects of copyright - the chilling effect on the free exchange of information - is non-linear. The more information we have, the more collective cost is paid by society having to worry about the chilling aspects (is my youtube video legal? Is my software? etc).
If the benefit of copyright is linear and the cost is non-linear as the number of works in the world grows then at some point we should abolish copyright entirely as the collective costs would be greater than the benefit provided by its incentive structure.
I think we probably hit this point in the 1990s, unfortunately. We are long overdue to repeal copyright entirely.
Copyright's value proposition is providing a monetization framework by allowing people to prevent others from sharing. Its only function is to limit creating copies. This made sense in the days of the printing press.
Nowadays we have many other monetization models which aren't predicated on limiting sharing. Many large and in some case (open source) leading systems are built on these non-restrictive models.
I think the negative aspects of copyright - the chilling effect on the free exchange of information - is non-linear. The more information we have, the more collective cost is paid by society having to worry about the chilling aspects (is my youtube video legal? Is my software? etc).
If the benefit of copyright is linear and the cost is non-linear as the number of works in the world grows then at some point we should abolish copyright entirely as the collective costs would be greater than the benefit provided by its incentive structure.
I think we probably hit this point in the 1990s, unfortunately. We are long overdue to repeal copyright entirely.
> If the benefit of copyright is linear and the cost is non-linear as the number of works in the world grows then at some point we should abolish copyright entirely as the collective costs would be greater than the benefit provided by its incentive structure.
I think it's worth considering not just the number of works, but also the number of copiers.
In the days when copying meant printing presses, the physical act of making copies was overwhelmingly a commercial activity performed by a relative handful of businesses. Making a copy of a substantial work was not something the average person had a serious opportunity to do even once in their entire life, so copyright law only meaningfully restricted a small number of entities. By the mid-1980s, with the proliferation of human-scale media technologies like the photocopier, VCR, camcorder, tape deck, and floppy drive, the number of meaningfully regulated entities began an explosive growth that has not stopped since. Copyright law has been amended with hacks like the AHRA and DMCA, but has never come close to a true reckoning with the modern reality of a copy being just a click away for countless millions of people, never mind cultural phenomena like meme generators, mashups, and fanfic that tend to functionally treat authorship less as a matter of negotiable consideration and more as a matter of tribal history.
I think it's worth considering not just the number of works, but also the number of copiers.
In the days when copying meant printing presses, the physical act of making copies was overwhelmingly a commercial activity performed by a relative handful of businesses. Making a copy of a substantial work was not something the average person had a serious opportunity to do even once in their entire life, so copyright law only meaningfully restricted a small number of entities. By the mid-1980s, with the proliferation of human-scale media technologies like the photocopier, VCR, camcorder, tape deck, and floppy drive, the number of meaningfully regulated entities began an explosive growth that has not stopped since. Copyright law has been amended with hacks like the AHRA and DMCA, but has never come close to a true reckoning with the modern reality of a copy being just a click away for countless millions of people, never mind cultural phenomena like meme generators, mashups, and fanfic that tend to functionally treat authorship less as a matter of negotiable consideration and more as a matter of tribal history.
The greater good that both serve is the availability of creative works. Copyright serves it by rewarding authors of new creative works. Piracy serves it by increasing availability of existing creative works.
Like to keep Mickey Mouse out of public domain every time??
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
I'd agree if there were reasonable terms (maybe 30 year maximum term from publication date), but what copyright has become is not great in a lot of ways.
IA is not disregarding copyright, nor the publishers.. instead IA is changing the rules.. rules in which money does pay a role. A simple lens of conservative -> we want the rules to operate as they have, and liberal -> we want to change the rules .. might apply here.
Casting aspersions with the land-mine word "piracy" does not increase the intellectual level of the discussion, nor is it even accurate here IMO.
Casting aspersions with the land-mine word "piracy" does not increase the intellectual level of the discussion, nor is it even accurate here IMO.
I've never thought "piracy" was technically accurate; copyright violation is more like a kind of freeloading: other people are paying for their copies and you're not paying for yours.
At any rate, "changing the rules" can't be a blanket get-of-liability-free card, can it? I mean, if you walk into a convenience store, grab a Coke, and walk out without paying for it, you can't claim "I'm not disregarding payment, I'm changing the rules, rules in which money plays a role." Money plays a role, in the sense that you are expected to pay for the Coke and if you do not, it's theft.
It's uncomfortable to grapple with this, but the publishers were largely looking the other way with respect to the IA's lending library up when they were following the principle of "we've scanned X copies and thus can lend out X copies". Technically, that may still be considered copyright violation, in that the publishers didn't give permission for the copies to be used that way. But they let it slide until the IA decided that the closures of libraries during the pandemic constituted a rationale for "we've scanned at least one copy and thus can lend out as many as we want." SamReidHughes and I don't always see eye-to-eye on many things (hi, Sam), but legally speaking, he's absolutely correct, even if you'd prefer "flagrant copyright violation" rather than "piracy."
I can't believe that the IA did this without knowing full well it was inviting a legal challenge. The original CDL concept at least seems plausible to me, and in any case, I think the terms publishers offer libraries for digital copies are frequently bonkers (e.g., pay $X for a maximum of Y lending times, then be forced to buy a new digital copy). But either the IA deliberately violated copyright with the intent of trying to change the legal standing here -- which necessitates this trial happening -- or they deliberately violated copyright because they are, not to put too fine a point on it, blooming idiots. I would like to think the former, but I'm not sure they have very solid ground to stand on.
At any rate, "changing the rules" can't be a blanket get-of-liability-free card, can it? I mean, if you walk into a convenience store, grab a Coke, and walk out without paying for it, you can't claim "I'm not disregarding payment, I'm changing the rules, rules in which money plays a role." Money plays a role, in the sense that you are expected to pay for the Coke and if you do not, it's theft.
It's uncomfortable to grapple with this, but the publishers were largely looking the other way with respect to the IA's lending library up when they were following the principle of "we've scanned X copies and thus can lend out X copies". Technically, that may still be considered copyright violation, in that the publishers didn't give permission for the copies to be used that way. But they let it slide until the IA decided that the closures of libraries during the pandemic constituted a rationale for "we've scanned at least one copy and thus can lend out as many as we want." SamReidHughes and I don't always see eye-to-eye on many things (hi, Sam), but legally speaking, he's absolutely correct, even if you'd prefer "flagrant copyright violation" rather than "piracy."
I can't believe that the IA did this without knowing full well it was inviting a legal challenge. The original CDL concept at least seems plausible to me, and in any case, I think the terms publishers offer libraries for digital copies are frequently bonkers (e.g., pay $X for a maximum of Y lending times, then be forced to buy a new digital copy). But either the IA deliberately violated copyright with the intent of trying to change the legal standing here -- which necessitates this trial happening -- or they deliberately violated copyright because they are, not to put too fine a point on it, blooming idiots. I would like to think the former, but I'm not sure they have very solid ground to stand on.
Don’t act like there’s an intellectual level to the conversation when they just want to pirate books without paying.
Dont worry, soon you wont be able to use the smart TV, smart dishwasher and smart lights without subscribtion and removing the smart bits from your own property will be an act of piracy.
Ironically, without copyright, all software would be running on servers and locked down computing systems.
[deleted]
So, if I get pulled over doing 200, do I get to just tell the cop ‘I’m in a hurry, I changed the rules’.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Copyright should be limited to 20 years full stop. Nobody deserves to keep making money off of something for longer than two decades.
well it continues after the author us dead, you know, to keep motivaring the dead suthor to create more!
The IA really messed up when they knowingly violated copyright. The best case scenario now is they pay a reasonable sum to the publishers that doesn't cause long term harm.
(713 points, 208 comments)