5 ms·

Why reimplement waitlists later if this is legal? Is the answer that it probably isn't legal and they're just hoping for the best here?

sgift 7y ago
Things can be legal in specific situations even if it's illegal in others. It's up to courts to decide on that.
ComputerGuru 7y ago
They know (and wouldn't deny) it's against normal copyright law and an infringement of the IP of the authors/publishers; they are hoping that courts would side with them as a "war-time emergency measure taken in the national interest." I am deeply appreciative of the Internet Archive which is why I probably wouldn't have taken that bet. It would be horrible if their solvency and future relied on the outcome of the inevitable lawsuits to follow, and I don't think the risk (of losing IA) is worth the benefit (and this is why things this important should be government-backed so that they can ignore some laws with impunity in time of need, or at least without risking their very existence). Personally, I'd have switched to shorter waitlists first (e.g. 24 hours or even 4 hours). But I'm not a domain expert; what do I know?
- btilly 7y ago
  More than that, I would guess that they will defend themselves with an argument like the following. They will claim that they are lending out copies of books locked up in other libraries. And there are librarians from said libraries willing to testify that they have agreed to allow this. They have ceased tracking inventory because getting a detailed inventory under current conditions is challenging. But they believe that the number of copies that they have available exceeds the number that will get lent. If challenged, they will have the number of book X lent out on file. As long as they can find more libraries willing to say "We authorize them to lend the copy we can't lend physically because of quarantine" than they lent copies, this argument has a shot.
- Igelau 7y ago
  > It would be horrible if their solvency and future relied on the outcome of the inevitable lawsuits to follow I wonder if the wheels are already coming off. Otherwise it seems a bit excessive for IA to suddenly bet the whole house on this.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - JadeNB 7y ago
    > Otherwise it seems a bit excessive for IA to suddenly bet the whole house on this. What is the proper and proportionate response to a pandemic? I think that no-one knows, and, if I were in their shoes, then I'd rather history see me as the one who went too far in pursuit of the public good than the one who didn't do what I could have for fear that it was too much.
    - geofft 7y ago
      A lot of terrible things have been done by people who went too far in pursuit of what they thought was the public good. One potential proportionate response, in my opinion, would have been to lean harder on the existing model of Controlled Digital Lending (where each lent e-book is backed by a physical book), and instead of saying they're going to move to uncontrolled lending, put out a call for people to buy more backing copies for the duration of the pandemic, specifically identifying the books that were in more demand. Then they could have gotten those books into the hands of more people while also paying authors more.
      - silverreads 7y ago
        This comment hardly adds anything productive here and makes a heck of an accusation. What damage has sharing books freely during a national emergency ever done to anyone? The authors lose nothing and gain readers.
        geofft 7y ago
sp332 7y ago
Copyright infringement is generally a civil matter. That means someone has to bother to sue you before there are legal consequences. They're betting that publishers won't take the PR hit of suing a non-profit providing a public service during an emergency. And since the opt-out is so easy, the amount of damages someone could claim are probably pretty darn small.
- wolco 7y ago
  Unless you own a domain and they just take it away. Now you get to sue them.
- sp332 7y ago
  Late edit: they're really going out of their way to remove authors who don't want to be included. https://twitter.com/textfiles/status/1244793574073524229 https://twitter.com/textfiles/status/1244793574073524229
  - geofft 7y ago
    I'm a little worried that "I'd like to work with them" isn't "I'd like to remove them proactively." This reads to me like a request for crowd-sourced snitch-tagging.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - sp332 7y ago
      Late update, but they're putting in more effort to make sure authors don't get abuse. https://twitter.com/textfiles/status/1247612061732999172 https://twitter.com/textfiles/status/1247612061732999172
en4bz 7y ago
It's not legal. They are hoping that people will be chill given the circumstances. Controlled digital lending has to match the model of a library/video rental stores where you borrow/rent something for a few days then return it. Even if you are not actively using the App/Website, which is easily detectable, they cannot return the item to their digital pool while you have it checked out. Companies have tried to create Just In Time (JIT) media services that return digital items to a pool when you are not actively using them. This essentially creates micro loans with a time span of minutes to hours. I can't remember the name of the company that was attempting this but they were shutdown due to a copyright lawsuit. EDIT: They actually mention the company in the FAQ. ReDigi lost their lawsuit [1]. [1] http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/68b0f5b0-9593-4dd2-b23e-2f782e6042c5/1/doc/16-2321_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/68b0f5b0-9593-4dd2-b23e-2f782e6042c5/1/hilite/ http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/68b0f5b0-959...

sgift 7y ago

Things can be legal in specific situations even if it's illegal in others. It's up to courts to decide on that.

ComputerGuru 7y ago

They know (and wouldn't deny) it's against normal copyright law and an infringement of the IP of the authors/publishers; they are hoping that courts would side with them as a "war-time emergency measure taken in the national interest." I am deeply appreciative of the Internet Archive which is why I probably wouldn't have taken that bet. It would be horrible if their solvency and future relied on the outcome of the inevitable lawsuits to follow, and I don't think the risk (of losing IA) is worth the benefit (and this is why things this important should be government-backed so that they can ignore some laws with impunity in time of need, or at least without risking their very existence). Personally, I'd have switched to shorter waitlists first (e.g. 24 hours or even 4 hours). But I'm not a domain expert; what do I know?

btilly 7y ago
More than that, I would guess that they will defend themselves with an argument like the following. They will claim that they are lending out copies of books locked up in other libraries. And there are librarians from said libraries willing to testify that they have agreed to allow this. They have ceased tracking inventory because getting a detailed inventory under current conditions is challenging. But they believe that the number of copies that they have available exceeds the number that will get lent. If challenged, they will have the number of book X lent out on file. As long as they can find more libraries willing to say "We authorize them to lend the copy we can't lend physically because of quarantine" than they lent copies, this argument has a shot.
Igelau 7y ago
> It would be horrible if their solvency and future relied on the outcome of the inevitable lawsuits to follow I wonder if the wheels are already coming off. Otherwise it seems a bit excessive for IA to suddenly bet the whole house on this.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- JadeNB 7y ago
  > Otherwise it seems a bit excessive for IA to suddenly bet the whole house on this. What is the proper and proportionate response to a pandemic? I think that no-one knows, and, if I were in their shoes, then I'd rather history see me as the one who went too far in pursuit of the public good than the one who didn't do what I could have for fear that it was too much.
  - geofft 7y ago
    A lot of terrible things have been done by people who went too far in pursuit of what they thought was the public good. One potential proportionate response, in my opinion, would have been to lean harder on the existing model of Controlled Digital Lending (where each lent e-book is backed by a physical book), and instead of saying they're going to move to uncontrolled lending, put out a call for people to buy more backing copies for the duration of the pandemic, specifically identifying the books that were in more demand. Then they could have gotten those books into the hands of more people while also paying authors more.
    - silverreads 7y ago
      This comment hardly adds anything productive here and makes a heck of an accusation. What damage has sharing books freely during a national emergency ever done to anyone? The authors lose nothing and gain readers.
      - geofft 7y ago

sp332 7y ago

Copyright infringement is generally a civil matter. That means someone has to bother to sue you before there are legal consequences. They're betting that publishers won't take the PR hit of suing a non-profit providing a public service during an emergency. And since the opt-out is so easy, the amount of damages someone could claim are probably pretty darn small.

wolco 7y ago
Unless you own a domain and they just take it away. Now you get to sue them.
sp332 7y ago
Late edit: they're really going out of their way to remove authors who don't want to be included. https://twitter.com/textfiles/status/1244793574073524229 https://twitter.com/textfiles/status/1244793574073524229
- geofft 7y ago
  I'm a little worried that "I'd like to work with them" isn't "I'd like to remove them proactively." This reads to me like a request for crowd-sourced snitch-tagging.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - sp332 7y ago
    Late update, but they're putting in more effort to make sure authors don't get abuse. https://twitter.com/textfiles/status/1247612061732999172 https://twitter.com/textfiles/status/1247612061732999172

en4bz 7y ago

It's not legal. They are hoping that people will be chill given the circumstances. Controlled digital lending has to match the model of a library/video rental stores where you borrow/rent something for a few days then return it. Even if you are not actively using the App/Website, which is easily detectable, they cannot return the item to their digital pool while you have it checked out. Companies have tried to create Just In Time (JIT) media services that return digital items to a pool when you are not actively using them. This essentially creates micro loans with a time span of minutes to hours. I can't remember the name of the company that was attempting this but they were shutdown due to a copyright lawsuit. EDIT: They actually mention the company in the FAQ. ReDigi lost their lawsuit [1]. [1] http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/68b0f5b0-9593-4dd2-b23e-2f782e6042c5/1/doc/16-2321_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/68b0f5b0-9593-4dd2-b23e-2f782e6042c5/1/hilite/ http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/68b0f5b0-959...