5 ms·

For anybody interested in the IA's claimed ethical and legal justifications, they summarise and link to them at the following page: http://blog.archive.org/202

For anybody interested in the IA's claimed ethical and legal justifications, they summarise and link to them at the following page: http://blog.archive.org/2020/03/30/internet-archive-responds-why-we-released-the-national-emergency-library/ http://blog.archive.org/2020/03/30/internet-archive-responds...

snapetom 6y ago
Wow, that still seems rather weak and reckless. First they describe what Controlled Digital Lending is - one physical copy == one lend. They cite legal experts that agree. That's fine, no one's disagreeing there. Then they go on with this: "Additionally, fair use ultimately asks, 'whether the copyright law’s goal of promoting the Progress of Science and useful Arts would be better served by allowing the use than by preventing it.' In this case we believe it would be. Controlled digital lending as we conceive it is..." So basically they went off and created the National Emergency Library based on their own interpretation of Fair Use. You better be ready for a huge fight if you're going to that. I don't know how they couldn't have expected this.
ogennadi 6y ago
> Yes, we’ve had authors opt out. We anticipated that would happen as well; in fact, we launched with clear instructions on how to opt out because we understand that authors and creators have been impacted by the same global pandemic that has shuttered libraries and left students without access to print books. Our takedowns are completed quickly and the submitter is notified via email.
- chadash 6y ago
  It's nice that they have an easy opt-out system. But this is kind of like spammers who have easy opt-out... better than nothing, but I shouldn't be getting spammed in the first place.
  - WaltPurvis 6y ago
    It's worse than that. They're violating copyrights, i.e., stealing, and then saying "if you don't want us to steal from you, we have an opt out form you can fill out." EDIT: People are downvoting this because I equated violating copyrights to stealing, which is odd because US law explicitly defines copyright infringement as stealing property. That's not debatable; it's a simple fact. (A fact that apparently bothers some people, but being bothered by reality is not a basis for disagreement.)
    - bosswipe 6y ago
      Copyright infringement is not stealing.
      - WaltPurvis 6y ago
        That's a slogan I hear a lot. Unfortunately, the law disagrees. Copyright infringement is defined as a stolen property offense: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-113 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-11...
        dangerlibrary 6y ago
        Fortunately, it is not an immutable fact.
        6502nerdface 6y ago
        Well, the "law" is more than what's written in statute; you have to merge that with case law. My understanding is that in Dowling v. United States, the Supreme Court specifically ruled that copyright infringement is not theft (specifically in reference to the section of US code that you link to, no less): > Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(19...
- WaltPurvis 6y ago
  Numerous authors have said this was not their experience. More importantly, it is not an author's job to "opt out" of someone illegally pirating their work.
AmericanChopper 6y ago
I can’t see a single legal justification put forward here or anywhere else. They talk extensively about CDL, but this lawsuit isn’t about CDL, it’s about un-CDL. Their moral justification is quite straightforward (though not without its own issues), but the legal system doesn’t exist to enforce a system of morals, it exists to enforce a system of laws. I can’t imagine what their legal strategy could possibly be...

snapetom 6y ago

Wow, that still seems rather weak and reckless. First they describe what Controlled Digital Lending is - one physical copy == one lend. They cite legal experts that agree. That's fine, no one's disagreeing there. Then they go on with this: "Additionally, fair use ultimately asks, 'whether the copyright law’s goal of promoting the Progress of Science and useful Arts would be better served by allowing the use than by preventing it.' In this case we believe it would be. Controlled digital lending as we conceive it is..." So basically they went off and created the National Emergency Library based on their own interpretation of Fair Use. You better be ready for a huge fight if you're going to that. I don't know how they couldn't have expected this.

ogennadi 6y ago

> Yes, we’ve had authors opt out. We anticipated that would happen as well; in fact, we launched with clear instructions on how to opt out because we understand that authors and creators have been impacted by the same global pandemic that has shuttered libraries and left students without access to print books. Our takedowns are completed quickly and the submitter is notified via email.

chadash 6y ago
It's nice that they have an easy opt-out system. But this is kind of like spammers who have easy opt-out... better than nothing, but I shouldn't be getting spammed in the first place.
- WaltPurvis 6y ago
  It's worse than that. They're violating copyrights, i.e., stealing, and then saying "if you don't want us to steal from you, we have an opt out form you can fill out." EDIT: People are downvoting this because I equated violating copyrights to stealing, which is odd because US law explicitly defines copyright infringement as stealing property. That's not debatable; it's a simple fact. (A fact that apparently bothers some people, but being bothered by reality is not a basis for disagreement.)
  - bosswipe 6y ago
    Copyright infringement is not stealing.
    - WaltPurvis 6y ago
      That's a slogan I hear a lot. Unfortunately, the law disagrees. Copyright infringement is defined as a stolen property offense: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-113 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-11...
      - dangerlibrary 6y ago
        Fortunately, it is not an immutable fact.
      - 6502nerdface 6y ago
        Well, the "law" is more than what's written in statute; you have to merge that with case law. My understanding is that in Dowling v. United States, the Supreme Court specifically ruled that copyright infringement is not theft (specifically in reference to the section of US code that you link to, no less): > Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(19...
WaltPurvis 6y ago
Numerous authors have said this was not their experience. More importantly, it is not an author's job to "opt out" of someone illegally pirating their work.

AmericanChopper 6y ago

I can’t see a single legal justification put forward here or anywhere else. They talk extensively about CDL, but this lawsuit isn’t about CDL, it’s about un-CDL. Their moral justification is quite straightforward (though not without its own issues), but the legal system doesn’t exist to enforce a system of morals, it exists to enforce a system of laws. I can’t imagine what their legal strategy could possibly be...