6 ms·

I think they were considering being charitable by taking into account people's feelings and situations during a trans-national emergency. I myself borrowed an

I think they were considering being charitable by taking into account people's feelings and situations during a trans-national emergency. I myself borrowed an old book (which I already owned, but I wanted to compare differences among versions), turned a few pages, but then got distracted and didn't open it again (the virtual loan expired). I think it's a shame that people are trying to crucify an exemplary organization for doing a charitable act (no good deed goes unpunished, and all that). And, to be quite honest... Most of the books are at least 20 years old... So it's not like they were distributing best sellers that were actively being sold. I think it's a situation where publishers "are being forced" to be litigious, because they have an obligation to their shareholders to always take the option that yields more money; the Internet Archive just happened to leave themselves open to being a target, so they _have_ to do it. This reminds me a bit of Commander Chris Hadfield's cover of Space Oddity, and if I recall correctly, that David Bowie didn't own the rights to his own song and thus was unable to approve or deny an extension for Cmdr Hadfield's video on YouTube (and the controversy of the takedown).

xhkkffbf 6y ago
Yeah, it's generally a great organization, but that doesn't mean you can't do bad things. When they announced it, I wrote a friend at the IA and told him it was a big mistake. I tried to get them to change their mind. They had plenty of warning and thought their good works would insulate them.
- marnett 6y ago
  > doesn't mean you can't do bad things They did bad things in regard to endangering their institution. There is nothing objectively, morally "bad" about the National Emergency Library though.
  - xhkkffbf 6y ago
    It is bad if you're an author. (Or if you're a reader who wants the authors to stay in business.)
    - pengstrom 6y ago
      Where can I find a list of authors who went out if business by this move in particular?
      - xhkkffbf 6y ago
        You can't. The authors who would write the story are out of business. Seriously, this isn't a tree-falling-in-forest bit of sophistry. The press is dying and a large part of it is because of cheapskates like you.
      - unreal37 6y ago
        Either you believe in property rights or you don't. That's fine if you don't. But that's not the system we have. Authors don't "go out of business" if their words are copied without their permission. So the answer to your question will always be "no one". But they have rights to their words nonetheless.
philipov 6y ago
> they have an obligation to their shareholders to always take the option that yields more money This is not true, and I wish people would stop repeating it like gospel.
- TremendousJudge 6y ago
  They'll probably stop doing it when it stops seeming to be the case.
  - mattkrause 6y ago
    Since this comes up a lot, I did some digging. The actual standard, from In Re Walt Disney, is that business decisions aren’t reviewable unless “the exchange was so one-sided that no business person of ordinary, sound judgment could conclude that the corporation has received adequate consideration". In, Shlensky v. Wrigley, the Chicago Cubs were sued for refusing to install lighting for nighttime games: their president believed baseball was best as “a daytime sport." This is absurdly nebulous (and kind of bizarre), but the Cubs nevertheless won. That decision was based on Davis v. Louisville Gas and Electric Co, which says “the directors are chosen to pass upon such questions and their judgment unless shown to be tainted with fraud is accepted as final. The judgment the directors of the corporation enjoys the benefit of a presumption that it was formed in good faith, and was designed to promote the best interests of the corporation they serve.” While you can get sued for nearly anything, the legal standard is basically "Did you egregiously rip off the company so that you could make money?", not "Could you have squeezed ten cents more out of the public?"
    - joshuak 6y ago
      When I've herd this concept invoked the source has generally been attributed to Dodge v. Ford Motor Co.[1] That ruling seems to cut in either direction depending on the analysis. But in the end the most compelling argument seems to be lack of enforceability... the rule of wealth maximization for shareholders is virtually impossible to enforce as a practical matter. The rule is aspirational, except in odd cases. As long as corporate directors and CEOs claim to be maximizing profits for shareholders, they will be taken at their word, because it is impossible to refute these corporate officials' self-serving assertions about their motives. — Jonathan Macey While the rule of wealth maximization for shareholders is not an enforceable law, it is a standard of conduct for officers and directors of a company. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
Shivetya 6y ago
It is not charitable when you give away another persons property and by the end to you are equivocating. Seriously the fact that book is well read or old does not matter, they do not have the rights to do what they are doing and they purposefully trying to use COVID19 by exploiting people's feelings to get away with it. Publishers have standing and as such they have to file the suit. They are only being forced into this because IA is breaking known law and did so knowing they were.
- ngold 6y ago
  We the people of the united states grant a monopoly to an individual for a certain amount of time. I personally believe it should have stayed with the original time period. How much time do you need a monopoly? >The Copyright Act of 1790 was the first federal copyright act to be instituted in the United States, though most of the states had passed various legislation securing copyrights in the years immediately following the Revolutionary War. The stated object of the act was the "encouragement of learning," and it achieved this by securing authors the "sole right and liberty of printing, reprinting, publishing and vending" the copies of their "maps, charts, and books" for a term of 14 years, with the right to renew for one additional 14-year term should the copyright holder still be alive.
- door99 6y ago
  > It is not charitable when you give away another persons property Knowledge and culture is not anyone’s property. It is the collective work of all of humanity and ought to be treated as such.
  - zeroxfe 6y ago
    That may be a great philosophical argument, but in the eyes of the law (which is what we're discussing here), IA was giving away someone else's property, so it really can't be considered a charitable act. Even setting aside the law, there is a question of ethics. If I give you a license key to my software, and you give it away to 10 of your friends, would you consider your act charitable?
    - 6y ago
abtinf 6y ago
Theft isn’t charity.
- syshum 6y ago
  Copyright Infringement is not theft, US Courts specifically bar calling it theft in court filings because it is not treated as theft in law
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

xhkkffbf 6y ago

Yeah, it's generally a great organization, but that doesn't mean you can't do bad things. When they announced it, I wrote a friend at the IA and told him it was a big mistake. I tried to get them to change their mind. They had plenty of warning and thought their good works would insulate them.

marnett 6y ago
> doesn't mean you can't do bad things They did bad things in regard to endangering their institution. There is nothing objectively, morally "bad" about the National Emergency Library though.
- xhkkffbf 6y ago
  It is bad if you're an author. (Or if you're a reader who wants the authors to stay in business.)
  - pengstrom 6y ago
    Where can I find a list of authors who went out if business by this move in particular?
    - xhkkffbf 6y ago
      You can't. The authors who would write the story are out of business. Seriously, this isn't a tree-falling-in-forest bit of sophistry. The press is dying and a large part of it is because of cheapskates like you.
    - unreal37 6y ago
      Either you believe in property rights or you don't. That's fine if you don't. But that's not the system we have. Authors don't "go out of business" if their words are copied without their permission. So the answer to your question will always be "no one". But they have rights to their words nonetheless.

philipov 6y ago

> they have an obligation to their shareholders to always take the option that yields more money This is not true, and I wish people would stop repeating it like gospel.

TremendousJudge 6y ago
They'll probably stop doing it when it stops seeming to be the case.
- mattkrause 6y ago
  Since this comes up a lot, I did some digging. The actual standard, from In Re Walt Disney, is that business decisions aren’t reviewable unless “the exchange was so one-sided that no business person of ordinary, sound judgment could conclude that the corporation has received adequate consideration". In, Shlensky v. Wrigley, the Chicago Cubs were sued for refusing to install lighting for nighttime games: their president believed baseball was best as “a daytime sport." This is absurdly nebulous (and kind of bizarre), but the Cubs nevertheless won. That decision was based on Davis v. Louisville Gas and Electric Co, which says “the directors are chosen to pass upon such questions and their judgment unless shown to be tainted with fraud is accepted as final. The judgment the directors of the corporation enjoys the benefit of a presumption that it was formed in good faith, and was designed to promote the best interests of the corporation they serve.” While you can get sued for nearly anything, the legal standard is basically "Did you egregiously rip off the company so that you could make money?", not "Could you have squeezed ten cents more out of the public?"
  - joshuak 6y ago
    When I've herd this concept invoked the source has generally been attributed to Dodge v. Ford Motor Co.[1] That ruling seems to cut in either direction depending on the analysis. But in the end the most compelling argument seems to be lack of enforceability... the rule of wealth maximization for shareholders is virtually impossible to enforce as a practical matter. The rule is aspirational, except in odd cases. As long as corporate directors and CEOs claim to be maximizing profits for shareholders, they will be taken at their word, because it is impossible to refute these corporate officials' self-serving assertions about their motives. — Jonathan Macey While the rule of wealth maximization for shareholders is not an enforceable law, it is a standard of conduct for officers and directors of a company. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

Shivetya 6y ago

It is not charitable when you give away another persons property and by the end to you are equivocating. Seriously the fact that book is well read or old does not matter, they do not have the rights to do what they are doing and they purposefully trying to use COVID19 by exploiting people's feelings to get away with it. Publishers have standing and as such they have to file the suit. They are only being forced into this because IA is breaking known law and did so knowing they were.

ngold 6y ago
We the people of the united states grant a monopoly to an individual for a certain amount of time. I personally believe it should have stayed with the original time period. How much time do you need a monopoly? >The Copyright Act of 1790 was the first federal copyright act to be instituted in the United States, though most of the states had passed various legislation securing copyrights in the years immediately following the Revolutionary War. The stated object of the act was the "encouragement of learning," and it achieved this by securing authors the "sole right and liberty of printing, reprinting, publishing and vending" the copies of their "maps, charts, and books" for a term of 14 years, with the right to renew for one additional 14-year term should the copyright holder still be alive.
door99 6y ago
> It is not charitable when you give away another persons property Knowledge and culture is not anyone’s property. It is the collective work of all of humanity and ought to be treated as such.
- zeroxfe 6y ago
  That may be a great philosophical argument, but in the eyes of the law (which is what we're discussing here), IA was giving away someone else's property, so it really can't be considered a charitable act. Even setting aside the law, there is a question of ethics. If I give you a license key to my software, and you give it away to 10 of your friends, would you consider your act charitable?
  - 6y ago

abtinf 6y ago

Theft isn’t charity.

syshum 6y ago
Copyright Infringement is not theft, US Courts specifically bar calling it theft in court filings because it is not treated as theft in law

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]