3 ms·

> the IA was shut down because its leadership decided to be philanthropic during a period of human history that lacked freedom of information Philanthropic by

by jawns 6y ago

> the IA was shut down because its leadership decided to be philanthropic during a period of human history that lacked freedom of information Philanthropic by massively infringing on copyright. Giving away something you own and have a right to give away is one thing. But critics of the emergency library allege that because the IA doesn't own the copyright to these books, they don't get to make and lend unlimited copies. Under the first sale doctrine, they can only lend out as many copies as they own.

ghaff 6y ago
>Under the first sale doctrine, they can only lend out as many copies as they own. TBH, even that is not established as a point of law (if the lending is digital copies of physical books) but it seems a reasonable position and publishers/authors weren't pushing on it.
obiye 6y ago
Many people, myself among them, believe copyright is an unjust legal construct. In the vein of Gandhi, it is our moral imperative to violate unjust laws. So I stand with IA in their supposed violation of copyright.
Aeolun 6y ago
I don’t think they actually make more copies? They just allow multiple people to look at the same copy at the same time?
- grayfaced 6y ago
  Copyright law is not caught up to how computers operate. There are still arguments that executing a program is creating a copy (into memory) in violation of copyright law. That it is only allowed since the EULA permits it. There is no way to display a picture on two different computer on internet without making many copies in process. Arguments can commence on whether they're transitory or tangible copies according to law.
- geofft 6y ago
  The word "copy" gets kind of strange in a digital world, but I think the closest analogue to this in the pre-digital world would be public performance, which is one of the limited rights under copyright. I only need to buy one copy of sheet music (and maybe not even that, if I'm a quick learner) for a thousand people to enjoy my performance of it, but merely having the copy does not entitle me to perform it for those thousand people. The first-sale doctrine does allow me to resell the sheet music itself, for someone else to rehearse from or study, but that's it.

by jawns 6y ago

ghaff 6y ago

>Under the first sale doctrine, they can only lend out as many copies as they own. TBH, even that is not established as a point of law (if the lending is digital copies of physical books) but it seems a reasonable position and publishers/authors weren't pushing on it.

obiye 6y ago

Many people, myself among them, believe copyright is an unjust legal construct. In the vein of Gandhi, it is our moral imperative to violate unjust laws. So I stand with IA in their supposed violation of copyright.

Aeolun 6y ago

I don’t think they actually make more copies? They just allow multiple people to look at the same copy at the same time?

grayfaced 6y ago
Copyright law is not caught up to how computers operate. There are still arguments that executing a program is creating a copy (into memory) in violation of copyright law. That it is only allowed since the EULA permits it. There is no way to display a picture on two different computer on internet without making many copies in process. Arguments can commence on whether they're transitory or tangible copies according to law.
geofft 6y ago
The word "copy" gets kind of strange in a digital world, but I think the closest analogue to this in the pre-digital world would be public performance, which is one of the limited rights under copyright. I only need to buy one copy of sheet music (and maybe not even that, if I'm a quick learner) for a thousand people to enjoy my performance of it, but merely having the copy does not entitle me to perform it for those thousand people. The first-sale doctrine does allow me to resell the sheet music itself, for someone else to rehearse from or study, but that's it.