4 ms·

Okay that seems like pretty brazen copyright infringement then. That's crazy! Maybe they hope to disrupt the publishing industry, but really just sounds like a

Okay that seems like pretty brazen copyright infringement then. That's crazy! Maybe they hope to disrupt the publishing industry, but really just sounds like a way to get sued.

guidoism 6y ago
The books are still DRMd so it's not as crazy as one might expect.
sp332 6y ago
There's an opt-out. And they're partnering with a bunch of other libraries that are closed due to the pandemic so maybe they'll get to count all of those copies as well. They also excluded all books published recently. So I doubt any author or publisher will be able to show significant damages in court.
- jawns 6y ago
  > They also excluded all books published recently. One of my books was published in 2014 and is on the list. > There's an opt-out. Because authors can opt out of having their books pirated, that makes it OK? How are authors notified about the existence of the opt-out? Oh, they're not? Hmm.
  - sp332 6y ago
    The cutoff was five years. @textfiles on Twitter has offered to help authors with the process. He recommends contacting him via DM to avoid harassment from eager IA defenders.
    - jawns 6y ago
      So the Internet Archive believes that copyright protection for creative works should extend no more than five years past the date of publication? I'm all for copyright reform, but that's a preposterously short period. One hundred years ago, copyright lasted for 28 years, with the potential to renew for another 28 years. Even if you went back to that copyright term WITHOUT the renewal, five years is still less than 20 percent of that.
      - cygx 6y ago
        Please don't strawman the IA's position. They suspended the waitlist of (parts of) their library collection for 3 months during a global pandemic that necessitated the closure of physical libraries. The books still cannot be redistributed freely and will have to be returned. Was that legal? Possibly not, so authors and rights holders do have a grievance. But personally, I'm going to judge anyone who's going to the courts instead of merely opting out.
      - dredmorbius 6y ago
        "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Mindwipe 6y ago
It was. Some of us pointed this out at the time and got downvoted for saying that reality does not conform to "thing other HN posters would like."
- a1369209993 6y ago
  > Some of us pointed this out at the time and got downvoted for saying that reality does not conform to "thing other HN posters would like." I am completely willing to believe that some people did, but the overwhelming majority I saw were getting downvoted for (whether deliberately or carelessly) confusing "copyright infringement is not legal" (which is true, but common knowledge) with "copyright infringement is not a active moral good" (which is false, at least of the type of copyright infringement archive.org is doing), and concluding that the Internet Archive was doing something morally, rather than just strategically, wrong.

Okay that seems like pretty brazen copyright infringement then. That's crazy! Maybe they hope to disrupt the publishing industry, but really just sounds like a way to get sued.

guidoism 6y ago

The books are still DRMd so it's not as crazy as one might expect.

sp332 6y ago

There's an opt-out. And they're partnering with a bunch of other libraries that are closed due to the pandemic so maybe they'll get to count all of those copies as well. They also excluded all books published recently. So I doubt any author or publisher will be able to show significant damages in court.

jawns 6y ago
> They also excluded all books published recently. One of my books was published in 2014 and is on the list. > There's an opt-out. Because authors can opt out of having their books pirated, that makes it OK? How are authors notified about the existence of the opt-out? Oh, they're not? Hmm.
- sp332 6y ago
  The cutoff was five years. @textfiles on Twitter has offered to help authors with the process. He recommends contacting him via DM to avoid harassment from eager IA defenders.
  - jawns 6y ago
    So the Internet Archive believes that copyright protection for creative works should extend no more than five years past the date of publication? I'm all for copyright reform, but that's a preposterously short period. One hundred years ago, copyright lasted for 28 years, with the potential to renew for another 28 years. Even if you went back to that copyright term WITHOUT the renewal, five years is still less than 20 percent of that.
    - cygx 6y ago
      Please don't strawman the IA's position. They suspended the waitlist of (parts of) their library collection for 3 months during a global pandemic that necessitated the closure of physical libraries. The books still cannot be redistributed freely and will have to be returned. Was that legal? Possibly not, so authors and rights holders do have a grievance. But personally, I'm going to judge anyone who's going to the courts instead of merely opting out.
    - dredmorbius 6y ago
      "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Mindwipe 6y ago

It was. Some of us pointed this out at the time and got downvoted for saying that reality does not conform to "thing other HN posters would like."

a1369209993 6y ago
> Some of us pointed this out at the time and got downvoted for saying that reality does not conform to "thing other HN posters would like." I am completely willing to believe that some people did, but the overwhelming majority I saw were getting downvoted for (whether deliberately or carelessly) confusing "copyright infringement is not legal" (which is true, but common knowledge) with "copyright infringement is not a active moral good" (which is false, at least of the type of copyright infringement archive.org is doing), and concluding that the Internet Archive was doing something morally, rather than just strategically, wrong.