6 ms·

Declaring this "pro-social" doesn't suddenly make it legal. It's clearly not any more legal then lending out a single copy of a DVD to one million people via B

Declaring this "pro-social" doesn't suddenly make it legal. It's clearly not any more legal then lending out a single copy of a DVD to one million people via BitTorrent. I get that it seems generous to give away these works. But they simply weren't theirs to give away to begin with. If you want to lend out 1,000 copies of book, first you have to buy 1,000 copies of said book. I'm disappointed with Internet Archive. They're opening themselves up to a huge lawsuit, and I'd hate to see their mission derailed because of it.

geofft 7y ago
> I'm disappointed with Internet Archive. They're opening themselves up to a huge lawsuit, and I'd hate to see their mission derailed because of it. Not only that - if this goes to court, there's a really good chance that the concept of Controlled Digital Lending (i.e., libraries lending out scans backed one-to-one by physical books, which many libraries including Internet Archive have been doing for a long time before this) ends up in court too, and a judge says, what the Internet Archive did is illegal because the whole idea of Controlled Digital Lending was never legal in the first place. I think it's foolish to trust that the courts (especially the courts today) are going to be sympathetic to fair use and to narrowing copyright.
- Apocryphon 7y ago
  There's a theory that IA leadership is intentionally trying to force a landmark court case: https://twitter.com/rahaeli/status/1244257620548038656 https://twitter.com/rahaeli/status/1244257620548038656
  - geofft 7y ago
    Hope it goes better than Eldred v. Ashcroft.
  - 40four 7y ago
    That’s a pretty good angry Twitter rant. Here’s the (easier to read) link using threadreaderapp.com, my new found best friend! https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1244257620548038656.html?refreshed=1585629738 https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1244257620548038656.html?... The premise that they would be trying to purposefully shove it into the court system to achieve a ruling one way or the other is interesting. That’s how you play hard in the paint!
    - mackrevinack 7y ago
      wow. that website is a great invention
      - 40four 7y ago
        Fantastic product! Just found out about it, some nice folks pointed it out to me recently after complaining about how much I hate trying to read long Twitter threads :)
- squarefoot 7y ago
  "Not only that - if this goes to court ..." They gave authors the ability to opt out. From the FAQ: "If I am an author and I do not want my book to be temporarily available during this crisis, how can I remove my book from the National Emergency Library? Authors who do not want their books in the National Emergency Library should send an email to info@archive.org with “National Emergency Library Removal Request” as the subject line. Please include each URL of the book or books you would like to have removed. Please allow up to 72 hours for processing as we are a small team."
  - sysbin 7y ago
    One could argue it should be an opt-in firstly. I find that difficult for creating the same service but just.
  - geofft 7y ago
    I'm not sure that opt-out makes a meaningful difference in whether it is likely to end up in court. I don't expect that Napster giving artists an opt-out form would have saved them, for instance.
bsanr2 7y ago
They offer an opt-out process that suspends lending completely. If we're going to talk about the alleged illegality of a controlled process for sharing data, I'd like to start with ad-tracking, since that clearly affects a larger group of people and because its legality seems to rest on a similar premise (at least, to this layman).
- geofft 7y ago
  > They offer an opt-out process that suspends lending completely. That's not how copyright works in the US. Maybe it should be, but it's not. The owner of a copyright gets to say how it's used, they don't merely have a right to refuse to uses if they're aware of them. There are certain exceptions, such as compulsory licensing (e.g., in the US you can get a license to cover a song at a fixed-by-law rate) and fair use, but those aren't opt-out mechanisms either - those are permissions that the copyright holder can't refuse. Maybe it should, but the law doesn't work that way right now. > If we're going to talk about the alleged illegality of a controlled process for sharing data, I'd like to start with ad-tracking, since that clearly affects a larger group of people and because its legality seems to rest on a similar premise (at least, to this layman). Copyright doesn't protect data, it protects the creative expression of ideas. Data itself isn't copyrightable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R.... Therefore, nobody is infringing any copyright I have by tracking my behavior via ads. Maybe it should (or maybe copyright shouldn't protect anything), but the law doesn't work that way right now.
  - bsanr2 7y ago
    >That's not how copyright works in the US. Maybe it should be, but it's not. The owner of a copyright gets to say how it's used, they don't merely have a right to refuse to uses if they're aware of them. I'm not sure how Youtube et al.'s situation is different in these regards. In both cases, the takedown process is covered under the DMCA, no? >Copyright doesn't protect data, it protects the creative expression of ideas. Data itself isn't copyrightable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R.... Therefore, nobody is infringing any copyright I have by tracking my behavior via ads. As an artist, I'd hold that much of my expression is tied up in my data. Likewise, my data is part of the creative expression that I use to market my works. For example, the websites that I choose to visit are part of my subcultural identity and intentionally signal to others that identity, an expression of my personal creativity; the works that I post are dissected and sold as data to market to me. This is an integral aspect of the interaction model of so-called Web 2.0 platforms. ...I'm sure this hasn't been argued before, but should we decide to open the can of worms of whether or not libraries should "be"... Ultimately, these issues seem to be unexamined, to some extent. I wonder if there's some hesitation to invite a floodgate-opening should a decision go sideways.
aiscapehumanity 7y ago
Authors think they're better than musicians it seems.. .
- Zonulet 7y ago
  Actually as an author I am very sympathetic to what happened to musicians and I desperately hope it doesn't happen to us too.
  - aiscapehumanity 7y ago
    It literally will, you don't think GANs and natural language processing will improve in 30 years to the point of autogenerating stories?
timoth 7y ago
"Give away" implies permanence (as does the reference to BitTorrent, though I realise that strictly speaking it doesn't necessarily entail illegality), but according to the post they're still limited to 2 weeks before they have to be checked out again, and they can't be distributed further. They've just removed the concurrency limitation so digital lending isn't backed 1-to-1 by a physical copy of the book. So yes, they're lending more than they physically have, but it's not permanent. To be clear, I'm not claiming it's legal, just pointing out it's not permanent. (I'm also not claiming you're saying it's permanent -- you do say "lend out" later on -- just clarifying in case anyone jumps to conclusions.)

geofft 7y ago

> I'm disappointed with Internet Archive. They're opening themselves up to a huge lawsuit, and I'd hate to see their mission derailed because of it. Not only that - if this goes to court, there's a really good chance that the concept of Controlled Digital Lending (i.e., libraries lending out scans backed one-to-one by physical books, which many libraries including Internet Archive have been doing for a long time before this) ends up in court too, and a judge says, what the Internet Archive did is illegal because the whole idea of Controlled Digital Lending was never legal in the first place. I think it's foolish to trust that the courts (especially the courts today) are going to be sympathetic to fair use and to narrowing copyright.

Apocryphon 7y ago
There's a theory that IA leadership is intentionally trying to force a landmark court case: https://twitter.com/rahaeli/status/1244257620548038656 https://twitter.com/rahaeli/status/1244257620548038656
- geofft 7y ago
  Hope it goes better than Eldred v. Ashcroft.
- 40four 7y ago
  That’s a pretty good angry Twitter rant. Here’s the (easier to read) link using threadreaderapp.com, my new found best friend! https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1244257620548038656.html?refreshed=1585629738 https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1244257620548038656.html?... The premise that they would be trying to purposefully shove it into the court system to achieve a ruling one way or the other is interesting. That’s how you play hard in the paint!
  - mackrevinack 7y ago
    wow. that website is a great invention
    - 40four 7y ago
      Fantastic product! Just found out about it, some nice folks pointed it out to me recently after complaining about how much I hate trying to read long Twitter threads :)
squarefoot 7y ago
"Not only that - if this goes to court ..." They gave authors the ability to opt out. From the FAQ: "If I am an author and I do not want my book to be temporarily available during this crisis, how can I remove my book from the National Emergency Library? Authors who do not want their books in the National Emergency Library should send an email to info@archive.org with “National Emergency Library Removal Request” as the subject line. Please include each URL of the book or books you would like to have removed. Please allow up to 72 hours for processing as we are a small team."
- sysbin 7y ago
  One could argue it should be an opt-in firstly. I find that difficult for creating the same service but just.
- geofft 7y ago
  I'm not sure that opt-out makes a meaningful difference in whether it is likely to end up in court. I don't expect that Napster giving artists an opt-out form would have saved them, for instance.

bsanr2 7y ago

They offer an opt-out process that suspends lending completely. If we're going to talk about the alleged illegality of a controlled process for sharing data, I'd like to start with ad-tracking, since that clearly affects a larger group of people and because its legality seems to rest on a similar premise (at least, to this layman).

geofft 7y ago
> They offer an opt-out process that suspends lending completely. That's not how copyright works in the US. Maybe it should be, but it's not. The owner of a copyright gets to say how it's used, they don't merely have a right to refuse to uses if they're aware of them. There are certain exceptions, such as compulsory licensing (e.g., in the US you can get a license to cover a song at a fixed-by-law rate) and fair use, but those aren't opt-out mechanisms either - those are permissions that the copyright holder can't refuse. Maybe it should, but the law doesn't work that way right now. > If we're going to talk about the alleged illegality of a controlled process for sharing data, I'd like to start with ad-tracking, since that clearly affects a larger group of people and because its legality seems to rest on a similar premise (at least, to this layman). Copyright doesn't protect data, it protects the creative expression of ideas. Data itself isn't copyrightable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R.... Therefore, nobody is infringing any copyright I have by tracking my behavior via ads. Maybe it should (or maybe copyright shouldn't protect anything), but the law doesn't work that way right now.
- bsanr2 7y ago
  >That's not how copyright works in the US. Maybe it should be, but it's not. The owner of a copyright gets to say how it's used, they don't merely have a right to refuse to uses if they're aware of them. I'm not sure how Youtube et al.'s situation is different in these regards. In both cases, the takedown process is covered under the DMCA, no? >Copyright doesn't protect data, it protects the creative expression of ideas. Data itself isn't copyrightable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R.... Therefore, nobody is infringing any copyright I have by tracking my behavior via ads. As an artist, I'd hold that much of my expression is tied up in my data. Likewise, my data is part of the creative expression that I use to market my works. For example, the websites that I choose to visit are part of my subcultural identity and intentionally signal to others that identity, an expression of my personal creativity; the works that I post are dissected and sold as data to market to me. This is an integral aspect of the interaction model of so-called Web 2.0 platforms. ...I'm sure this hasn't been argued before, but should we decide to open the can of worms of whether or not libraries should "be"... Ultimately, these issues seem to be unexamined, to some extent. I wonder if there's some hesitation to invite a floodgate-opening should a decision go sideways.

aiscapehumanity 7y ago

Authors think they're better than musicians it seems.. .

Zonulet 7y ago
Actually as an author I am very sympathetic to what happened to musicians and I desperately hope it doesn't happen to us too.
- aiscapehumanity 7y ago
  It literally will, you don't think GANs and natural language processing will improve in 30 years to the point of autogenerating stories?

timoth 7y ago

"Give away" implies permanence (as does the reference to BitTorrent, though I realise that strictly speaking it doesn't necessarily entail illegality), but according to the post they're still limited to 2 weeks before they have to be checked out again, and they can't be distributed further. They've just removed the concurrency limitation so digital lending isn't backed 1-to-1 by a physical copy of the book. So yes, they're lending more than they physically have, but it's not permanent. To be clear, I'm not claiming it's legal, just pointing out it's not permanent. (I'm also not claiming you're saying it's permanent -- you do say "lend out" later on -- just clarifying in case anyone jumps to conclusions.)