9 ms·

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 fo

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.
      - wtracy 6y ago
        > Wouldn't be legally recognized as a library, which was something the IA spent years clawing to be recognized as. That's an important nuance that I and others missed. > No, it couldn't. Why not? The publishers win a judgement for a value that exceeds that of the IA's total assets, and all of the IA's infrastructure gets seized and auctioned off in the bankruptcy proceedings.
        kick 6y ago
        Why not? The publishers win a judgement for a value that exceeds that of the IA's total assets, and all of the IA's infrastructure gets seized and auctioned off in the bankruptcy proceedings. The data is backed up in many ways (including to some extent in a fully-distributed fashion, though I'm not in the know enough to give you an idea of how vast it is: https://dweb.archive.org/ https://dweb.archive.org/ ), and a non-profit can't be forced into bankruptcy in the way you're implying (which is another reason it's so important the IA is non-profit), so the physical assets are safe: https://www.abi.org/member-resources/blog/a-non-profit-entity-may-not-be-forced-into-bankruptcy-through-substantive https://www.abi.org/member-resources/blog/a-non-profit-entit...
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.

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.
    - wtracy 6y ago
      > Wouldn't be legally recognized as a library, which was something the IA spent years clawing to be recognized as. That's an important nuance that I and others missed. > No, it couldn't. Why not? The publishers win a judgement for a value that exceeds that of the IA's total assets, and all of the IA's infrastructure gets seized and auctioned off in the bankruptcy proceedings.
      - kick 6y ago
        Why not? The publishers win a judgement for a value that exceeds that of the IA's total assets, and all of the IA's infrastructure gets seized and auctioned off in the bankruptcy proceedings. The data is backed up in many ways (including to some extent in a fully-distributed fashion, though I'm not in the know enough to give you an idea of how vast it is: https://dweb.archive.org/ https://dweb.archive.org/ ), and a non-profit can't be forced into bankruptcy in the way you're implying (which is another reason it's so important the IA is non-profit), so the physical assets are safe: https://www.abi.org/member-resources/blog/a-non-profit-entity-may-not-be-forced-into-bankruptcy-through-substantive https://www.abi.org/member-resources/blog/a-non-profit-entit...

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.