8 ms·

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

by 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.
    - Semaphor 6y ago
      > and pretending otherwise is a juvenile see-no-evil defense. And luckily I did not say that anywhere.
    - unreal37 6y ago
      Agreed. "Piracy isn't theft" is such a cliche in these arguments. The people downloading the books, music, movies, etc are getting something that they want, that normally costs money, for free. Come up with a new word if it isn't theft. But it looks and acts like theft.
zozbot234 6y ago
> Had they just increased their limits by some guesstimated number of unavailable books, it would’ve made for a much easier day in court. My guess is that this is exactly what they did and specifically, that they're cooperating with a number of currently-closed libraries so that they can still claim to have one book kept in storage for each book that's lent out, when accounting for those libraries' physical holdings. They just used the word "unlimited" as a convenient shortcut in describing their new policy, much like ISP's and their "unlimited but not really" data caps.
- hn_check 6y ago
  They made no claims to this effect, have announced zero partnership, and instead made claims entirely contrary to this. It seems remarkably specious and apologist to imagine this as an argument now. I don't even get why IA did this, or why they threatened the project itself with this side project. Many people gave money to the project for the internet archiving, not some sort of robinhood book distribution system. Whoever did this should have created a completely separate side project instead of effectively bankrupting the meaningful, justifiable project in the process.
  - zozbot234 6y ago
    > They made no claims to this effect, have announced zero partnership, and instead made claims entirely contrary to this. It makes sense that they would do this if they were actively trying to lure the pro-copyright camp (Authors' Guild and publishers) into a difficult-to-defend and highly unpopular position. I agree that it seems a bit unrealistic, but surely the IA had to know that a lawsuit would be filed given their public claims wrt. the NEL.
    - Silhouette 6y ago
      It makes sense that they would do this if they were actively trying to lure the pro-copyright camp (Authors' Guild and publishers) into a difficult-to-defend and highly unpopular position. That position being that the IA shouldn't do what the law says you aren't allowed to do? That doesn't seem very difficult to defend at all, and it's going to be unpopular with the kind of person who thinks copyright shouldn't exist but probably less so with the people who created those works if they aren't getting paid as they should be. I'm a little wary of saying much here because copyright disputes often seem to end up having relevant details that were omitted from some reporting on them. But if the IA really is making and distributing an unlimited number of copies of a protected work, isn't that exactly the act that copyright was designed to prohibit?
xhkkffbf 6y ago
It's baloney. Powell books was open and hiring staff to handle online orders. And if you must, there was also Amazon.
- triceratops 6y ago
  A book store is not a library. We taxpayers have already paid for libraries.
  - nickff 6y ago
    Well, taxpayers have paid for certain libraries, which have mostly been closed. If you want to get what you've paid for, you should probably talk to your municipal, state, and perhaps federal representatives. The fact that you paid one entity for a service (which they are not providing,) does not entitle you to collect it from another entity.
    - triceratops 6y ago
      I never said anything about being entitled to anything, please don't put words in my mouth. I'm just pointing out something that should be obvious - a bookstore isn't a library. And telling people who have already paid their taxes to go use a bookstore is offensive.

by pzh 6y ago

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.
  - Semaphor 6y ago
    > and pretending otherwise is a juvenile see-no-evil defense. And luckily I did not say that anywhere.
  - unreal37 6y ago
    Agreed. "Piracy isn't theft" is such a cliche in these arguments. The people downloading the books, music, movies, etc are getting something that they want, that normally costs money, for free. Come up with a new word if it isn't theft. But it looks and acts like theft.

zozbot234 6y ago

> Had they just increased their limits by some guesstimated number of unavailable books, it would’ve made for a much easier day in court. My guess is that this is exactly what they did and specifically, that they're cooperating with a number of currently-closed libraries so that they can still claim to have one book kept in storage for each book that's lent out, when accounting for those libraries' physical holdings. They just used the word "unlimited" as a convenient shortcut in describing their new policy, much like ISP's and their "unlimited but not really" data caps.

hn_check 6y ago
They made no claims to this effect, have announced zero partnership, and instead made claims entirely contrary to this. It seems remarkably specious and apologist to imagine this as an argument now. I don't even get why IA did this, or why they threatened the project itself with this side project. Many people gave money to the project for the internet archiving, not some sort of robinhood book distribution system. Whoever did this should have created a completely separate side project instead of effectively bankrupting the meaningful, justifiable project in the process.
- zozbot234 6y ago
  > They made no claims to this effect, have announced zero partnership, and instead made claims entirely contrary to this. It makes sense that they would do this if they were actively trying to lure the pro-copyright camp (Authors' Guild and publishers) into a difficult-to-defend and highly unpopular position. I agree that it seems a bit unrealistic, but surely the IA had to know that a lawsuit would be filed given their public claims wrt. the NEL.
  - Silhouette 6y ago
    It makes sense that they would do this if they were actively trying to lure the pro-copyright camp (Authors' Guild and publishers) into a difficult-to-defend and highly unpopular position. That position being that the IA shouldn't do what the law says you aren't allowed to do? That doesn't seem very difficult to defend at all, and it's going to be unpopular with the kind of person who thinks copyright shouldn't exist but probably less so with the people who created those works if they aren't getting paid as they should be. I'm a little wary of saying much here because copyright disputes often seem to end up having relevant details that were omitted from some reporting on them. But if the IA really is making and distributing an unlimited number of copies of a protected work, isn't that exactly the act that copyright was designed to prohibit?

xhkkffbf 6y ago

It's baloney. Powell books was open and hiring staff to handle online orders. And if you must, there was also Amazon.

triceratops 6y ago
A book store is not a library. We taxpayers have already paid for libraries.
- nickff 6y ago
  Well, taxpayers have paid for certain libraries, which have mostly been closed. If you want to get what you've paid for, you should probably talk to your municipal, state, and perhaps federal representatives. The fact that you paid one entity for a service (which they are not providing,) does not entitle you to collect it from another entity.
  - triceratops 6y ago
    I never said anything about being entitled to anything, please don't put words in my mouth. I'm just pointing out something that should be obvious - a bookstore isn't a library. And telling people who have already paid their taxes to go use a bookstore is offensive.