12 ms·

> In March, as the coronavirus pandemic was gaining steam, the Internet Archive announced it was dispensing with this waiting-list system. Under a program it ca

> In March, as the coronavirus pandemic was gaining steam, the Internet Archive announced it was dispensing with this waiting-list system. Under a program it called the National Emergency Library, IA began allowing an unlimited number of people to check out the same book at the same time—even if IA only owned one physical copy. This was a complete overreach by IA and they are paying the price. If you lend out digital versions all of which are backed by a physical copy, it is hard to argue that the publisher is being harmed. However, if you loan out unlimited digital versions of a single copy, that is much harder to justify, and that provided the the opening the publishers needed for a lawsuit. I love what the IA has done, but i think they unnecessarily stepped into a minefield for not that much benefit. Even Google with all its resources has not directly challenged the publishers.

StavrosK 6y ago
Absolutely agree. But also, I think that IA was entirely morally right to do this. The publishers seized the opportunity to do something they've wanted to do for a while, and in my opinion, it's despicable.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > IA was entirely morally right to do this That's fair. But the consequences should have been obvious. Part of launching a test case is segregating the liability. If IA wanted to launch a legal challenge, they should have segregated the risk from the main organization. Setting precedent with out-of-copyright and licensed works would have been one way. Allowing a third party to run the National Emergency Library would have been another. Instead, it seems they thought of an idea and ran with it. For an organization aiming for longevity, that's poor process.
  - StavrosK 6y ago
    Sure, I don't disagree.
  - kick 6y ago
    Setting precedent with out-of-copyright and They already did allow out-of-copyright works to be downloaded as many times as anyone wants, without DRM. They're out of copyright. That's unambiguously legal and always has been. There, they've done what you wanted them to, they "segregated the risk from the main organization" (you'd have to have a pretty warped worldview to imagine it makes a difference, but nothing in your comment would have actually done that). Allowing a third party to run the National Emergency Library would have been another. I've read this line over and over again. Is this what you meant by it? "The organization that has all of the books and is registered as a library shouldn't have run the library that's legally grounded in them being legally-recognized as a library and having all of the books that they have." If so, I completely disagree with you. This makes way more sense than you're giving credit for. IA isn't run by a five year old.
    - wtracy 6y ago
      The assertion is that a new organization should have been formed that owns the books and performs the lending, but has no access to the rest of the IA's assets. Then, in the event of a lawsuit, the only thing the publishers could seize would be the actual books. As it is, the entire IA infrastructure could be torn apart overnight.
      - kick 6y ago
        The assertion is that a new organization should have been formed that owns the books and performs the lending Wouldn't be legally recognized as a library, which was something the IA spent years clawing to be recognized as. but has no access to the rest of the IA's assets This would be incredibly stupid and would require a complete restructuring of how the IA works (despite the belief of seemingly many people in this thread, the IA is significantly more than the Wayback Machine). Then, in the event of a lawsuit, the only thing the publishers could seize would be the actual books. Which would still be bad and morally wrong, and is more likely to happen when it's its own, non-library entity. As it is, the entire IA infrastructure could be torn apart overnight. No, it couldn't. Not a bit more than it could be five months ago.
- arkades 6y ago
  The publishers waited until someone made a massive over-reach beyond any plausible deniability or defense, and that makes them despicable? I mean... a little blame goes to the folks that made the massive over-reach beyond any plausible deniability or defense, right? Maybe most of the blame? All of the blame? IA lofted the jolly roger and thought fear of bad press would protect them, and it's the publisher's fault for not saying, "never mind, you guys destroy the entire economic foundation of the publishing industry, no worries"? I'm rarely in the anti-pirate camp, but defending IA in this context is pretty extreme.
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    Trying to use a crisis to return sanity to copyright law isn't an overreach. The blame lies squarely on those who have spent decades creating draconian copyright law, and those today who defend it. "I'm an author" or "Think of the publishers!" is no excuse for supporting unjust laws.
    - chipotle_coyote 6y ago
      The argument is whether actions like this are the best way to "return sanity to copyright law," though, right? It seems to me there's a lot of space between "eternally extending copyright to keep the first Mickey Mouse cartoons from entering the public domain" and "anyone should be able to do whatever they want with other people's work at any point regardless of the creator's objections."
      - toomuchtodo 6y ago
        There is a lot of space, which is why you anchor with the opening salvo and then find middle ground. Keep in mind, the Internet Archive only opened the “National Emergency Library” during a global pandemic. Under business as usual, they put limits on access to scanned works. Copyright isn’t an inalienable right. It was established for the public good, and up for renegotiation at any time. Now is one of those times.
        6y ago
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- young_unixer 6y ago
  I hate intellectual property, but I don't despise the publishers, they're just playing by the (broken) rules of the game. I blame the politicians that do nothing to change the rules of the game in the first place, and the people that elect them.
  - nybble41 6y ago
    It is perfectly possible to blame both the politicians that propagate unjust rules and the people that take advantage of them. Both are contributing to injustice, each in their own way.
  - Kye 6y ago
    Copyright is the way it is because of publishers of various media lobbying for stronger, longer protection. The politicians are the people they lobby.
PragmaticPulp 6y ago
I still don't understand why they thought they would get away with it. Did they think they could draw a confrontation with the publishers and somehow come out victorious? Or that the publishers and their legal teams would voluntarily look the other way? I still can't tell what their plan was. Or what point they were trying to make. Or how they expected to handle the legal challenge. It's a shame that they tied this to the Internet Archive. I seriously doubt the people who donated to the IA wanted their funds to be used on this.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > I still don't understand why they thought they would get away with it This smells of a lack of risk management more than bad risk management.
  - PragmaticPulp 6y ago
    Or maybe they're getting exactly what they wanted. Maybe they let their political goals eclipse their IA goals, and they thought that tying this lawsuit to the life or death of the IA would force IA fans to donate?
    - anigbrowl 6y ago
      Public archives are fundamentally political.
    - greyhair 6y ago
      I was thinking the 'attention grabbing' side as well. Maybe their resources and funding were so borked they decided to throw a hail mary and hope for the best.
- tsomctl 6y ago
  > I seriously doubt the people who donated to the IA wanted their funds to be used on this. I'm not annoyed that my donation is being used for this. I trust them to do what they think is best. Although I do have my doubts.
tunesmith 6y ago
(Isn't this what mp3.com did?)
pzh 6y ago
I think one argument that they could make is that regular libraries are closed during the pandemic and there are thousands of physical copies that people can’t borrow because of the closures. Hence, their making available more digital copies than they physically own can be somewhat justified. The fact that they made that number unbounded is what’s most problematic. Had they just increased their limits by some guesstimated number of unavailable books, it would’ve made for a much easier day in court.
- arkades 6y ago
  Turns out "people are bored and entertainment isn't as freely available" is maybe not a great justification for stealing people's stuff. I also know of a large number of libraries (e.g., NYPL) that suspended their requirement that people verify their address, so realistically, anyone anywhere could register an ebook-only library card and avail themselves.
  - Semaphor 6y ago
    > Turns out "people are bored and entertainment isn't as freely available" is maybe not a great justification for stealing people's stuff. Luckily absolutely nothing was stolen.
    - arkades 6y ago
      You can assert copying isn't stealing, but the part where "I have something I didn't have a minute ago, and would normally have to pay money to acquire it, but didn't" is pretty clear-cut. Just because someone wasn't deprived of the thing you now have doesn't mean they weren't deprived of something of value, and pretending otherwise is a juvenile see-no-evil defense.
      - iopq 6y ago
        That's literally why it's not stealing. It's not legal, but it's also by definition not theft.
      - 6y ago
xhkkffbf 6y ago
I have to agree. This hurt authors everywhere and authors can't allow this kind of precedent to take hold or authors can't afford to eat. Nor can readers, really because without well-fed authors, there's nothing to read.
- rwmj 6y ago
  There were definitely authors before copyright existed.
  - Chlorus 6y ago
    I for one can't wait to return to a time where the only people who could afford to be writers were members of the upper class who didn't need to rely on publishing for their income; we might be spared the next Dan Brown. It's no wonder copyright reform has completely stalled out over the last 20 years when all discussions devolve into the same repeated canards.
    - mcguire 6y ago
      If you're one of the majority of writers and relying on publishing for your income, you are probably not relying on publishing for your income but rather food stamps. Publishers aren't really on authors' sides.
      - stubish 6y ago
        Many authors are their own publishers. Writing (and most arts) pays so little because society values their work so little. We seem to value a decent novel at about $5. An author already sees about $0.50-$1 of that. Respected, well reviewed, award winning (but not best selling) authors I know would still be hard up earning a living wage even if their income increased tenfold by them getting 100% of the proceeds.
kimi 6y ago
Still, you have to be mr Scrooge to punish IA for trying to help during an international emergency.
zerocrates 6y ago
Once they started doing video games just directly embedded in the site I figured their MO was just to keep pushing the boundaries and see how far they could go until they got slapped.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

StavrosK 6y ago

Absolutely agree. But also, I think that IA was entirely morally right to do this. The publishers seized the opportunity to do something they've wanted to do for a while, and in my opinion, it's despicable.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> IA was entirely morally right to do this That's fair. But the consequences should have been obvious. Part of launching a test case is segregating the liability. If IA wanted to launch a legal challenge, they should have segregated the risk from the main organization. Setting precedent with out-of-copyright and licensed works would have been one way. Allowing a third party to run the National Emergency Library would have been another. Instead, it seems they thought of an idea and ran with it. For an organization aiming for longevity, that's poor process.
- StavrosK 6y ago
  Sure, I don't disagree.
- kick 6y ago
  Setting precedent with out-of-copyright and They already did allow out-of-copyright works to be downloaded as many times as anyone wants, without DRM. They're out of copyright. That's unambiguously legal and always has been. There, they've done what you wanted them to, they "segregated the risk from the main organization" (you'd have to have a pretty warped worldview to imagine it makes a difference, but nothing in your comment would have actually done that). Allowing a third party to run the National Emergency Library would have been another. I've read this line over and over again. Is this what you meant by it? "The organization that has all of the books and is registered as a library shouldn't have run the library that's legally grounded in them being legally-recognized as a library and having all of the books that they have." If so, I completely disagree with you. This makes way more sense than you're giving credit for. IA isn't run by a five year old.
  - wtracy 6y ago
    The assertion is that a new organization should have been formed that owns the books and performs the lending, but has no access to the rest of the IA's assets. Then, in the event of a lawsuit, the only thing the publishers could seize would be the actual books. As it is, the entire IA infrastructure could be torn apart overnight.
    - kick 6y ago
      The assertion is that a new organization should have been formed that owns the books and performs the lending Wouldn't be legally recognized as a library, which was something the IA spent years clawing to be recognized as. but has no access to the rest of the IA's assets This would be incredibly stupid and would require a complete restructuring of how the IA works (despite the belief of seemingly many people in this thread, the IA is significantly more than the Wayback Machine). Then, in the event of a lawsuit, the only thing the publishers could seize would be the actual books. Which would still be bad and morally wrong, and is more likely to happen when it's its own, non-library entity. As it is, the entire IA infrastructure could be torn apart overnight. No, it couldn't. Not a bit more than it could be five months ago.
arkades 6y ago
The publishers waited until someone made a massive over-reach beyond any plausible deniability or defense, and that makes them despicable? I mean... a little blame goes to the folks that made the massive over-reach beyond any plausible deniability or defense, right? Maybe most of the blame? All of the blame? IA lofted the jolly roger and thought fear of bad press would protect them, and it's the publisher's fault for not saying, "never mind, you guys destroy the entire economic foundation of the publishing industry, no worries"? I'm rarely in the anti-pirate camp, but defending IA in this context is pretty extreme.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  Trying to use a crisis to return sanity to copyright law isn't an overreach. The blame lies squarely on those who have spent decades creating draconian copyright law, and those today who defend it. "I'm an author" or "Think of the publishers!" is no excuse for supporting unjust laws.
  - chipotle_coyote 6y ago
    The argument is whether actions like this are the best way to "return sanity to copyright law," though, right? It seems to me there's a lot of space between "eternally extending copyright to keep the first Mickey Mouse cartoons from entering the public domain" and "anyone should be able to do whatever they want with other people's work at any point regardless of the creator's objections."
    - toomuchtodo 6y ago
      There is a lot of space, which is why you anchor with the opening salvo and then find middle ground. Keep in mind, the Internet Archive only opened the “National Emergency Library” during a global pandemic. Under business as usual, they put limits on access to scanned works. Copyright isn’t an inalienable right. It was established for the public good, and up for renegotiation at any time. Now is one of those times.
      - 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
young_unixer 6y ago
I hate intellectual property, but I don't despise the publishers, they're just playing by the (broken) rules of the game. I blame the politicians that do nothing to change the rules of the game in the first place, and the people that elect them.
- nybble41 6y ago
  It is perfectly possible to blame both the politicians that propagate unjust rules and the people that take advantage of them. Both are contributing to injustice, each in their own way.
- Kye 6y ago
  Copyright is the way it is because of publishers of various media lobbying for stronger, longer protection. The politicians are the people they lobby.

PragmaticPulp 6y ago

I still don't understand why they thought they would get away with it. Did they think they could draw a confrontation with the publishers and somehow come out victorious? Or that the publishers and their legal teams would voluntarily look the other way? I still can't tell what their plan was. Or what point they were trying to make. Or how they expected to handle the legal challenge. It's a shame that they tied this to the Internet Archive. I seriously doubt the people who donated to the IA wanted their funds to be used on this.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> I still don't understand why they thought they would get away with it This smells of a lack of risk management more than bad risk management.
- PragmaticPulp 6y ago
  Or maybe they're getting exactly what they wanted. Maybe they let their political goals eclipse their IA goals, and they thought that tying this lawsuit to the life or death of the IA would force IA fans to donate?
  - anigbrowl 6y ago
    Public archives are fundamentally political.
  - greyhair 6y ago
    I was thinking the 'attention grabbing' side as well. Maybe their resources and funding were so borked they decided to throw a hail mary and hope for the best.
tsomctl 6y ago
> I seriously doubt the people who donated to the IA wanted their funds to be used on this. I'm not annoyed that my donation is being used for this. I trust them to do what they think is best. Although I do have my doubts.

tunesmith 6y ago

(Isn't this what mp3.com did?)

pzh 6y ago

I think one argument that they could make is that regular libraries are closed during the pandemic and there are thousands of physical copies that people can’t borrow because of the closures. Hence, their making available more digital copies than they physically own can be somewhat justified. The fact that they made that number unbounded is what’s most problematic. Had they just increased their limits by some guesstimated number of unavailable books, it would’ve made for a much easier day in court.

arkades 6y ago
Turns out "people are bored and entertainment isn't as freely available" is maybe not a great justification for stealing people's stuff. I also know of a large number of libraries (e.g., NYPL) that suspended their requirement that people verify their address, so realistically, anyone anywhere could register an ebook-only library card and avail themselves.
- Semaphor 6y ago
  > Turns out "people are bored and entertainment isn't as freely available" is maybe not a great justification for stealing people's stuff. Luckily absolutely nothing was stolen.
  - arkades 6y ago
    You can assert copying isn't stealing, but the part where "I have something I didn't have a minute ago, and would normally have to pay money to acquire it, but didn't" is pretty clear-cut. Just because someone wasn't deprived of the thing you now have doesn't mean they weren't deprived of something of value, and pretending otherwise is a juvenile see-no-evil defense.
    - iopq 6y ago
      That's literally why it's not stealing. It's not legal, but it's also by definition not theft.
    - 6y ago

xhkkffbf 6y ago

I have to agree. This hurt authors everywhere and authors can't allow this kind of precedent to take hold or authors can't afford to eat. Nor can readers, really because without well-fed authors, there's nothing to read.

rwmj 6y ago
There were definitely authors before copyright existed.
- Chlorus 6y ago
  I for one can't wait to return to a time where the only people who could afford to be writers were members of the upper class who didn't need to rely on publishing for their income; we might be spared the next Dan Brown. It's no wonder copyright reform has completely stalled out over the last 20 years when all discussions devolve into the same repeated canards.
  - mcguire 6y ago
    If you're one of the majority of writers and relying on publishing for your income, you are probably not relying on publishing for your income but rather food stamps. Publishers aren't really on authors' sides.
    - stubish 6y ago
      Many authors are their own publishers. Writing (and most arts) pays so little because society values their work so little. We seem to value a decent novel at about $5. An author already sees about $0.50-$1 of that. Respected, well reviewed, award winning (but not best selling) authors I know would still be hard up earning a living wage even if their income increased tenfold by them getting 100% of the proceeds.

kimi 6y ago

Still, you have to be mr Scrooge to punish IA for trying to help during an international emergency.

zerocrates 6y ago

Once they started doing video games just directly embedded in the site I figured their MO was just to keep pushing the boundaries and see how far they could go until they got slapped.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]