18 ms·

In my opinion, they showed that it didn't become Pirate Bay, but rather reasonably and responsibly took over, during a period of emergency, on the duty of their

In my opinion, they showed that it didn't become Pirate Bay, but rather reasonably and responsibly took over, during a period of emergency, on the duty of their physical counterparts (closed to the public). It rather strengthened its mission.

MattGaiser 6y ago
Had they taken partner library inventory from confirmed closed libraries and allowed that number of books to be lent, then sure. Instead they allowed unlimited borrowing. They fundamentally broke the "controlled" part.
- xhkkffbf 6y ago
  Exactly. It's almost insulting to everyone to call it "controlled". It's like _1984_'s newspeak.
- acqq 6y ago
  AFAIK the borrowing was still limited in time and with the DRM protection. Whoever "took" the book at that time lost the access to it long ago already, thanks to the DRM protection remaining and working. Edit: answering "I'm not sure I'd call what they're doing "DRM". Read the court case: explicitly Adobe DRM technology for encrypted e-book formats is mentioned, implemented in different e-book readers and used in this case.
  - kevindong 6y ago
    If there's no limits on how many copies they would hand out and no limit on how often you can check out the same book, then for practical purposes it's not time limited.
    - acqq 6y ago
      > no limit on how often you can check out the same book There was always a fixed limit on how long the book remains checked out, and it must have already expired to all that checked it out at that time. The DRM protection remained active. Edit: answering the post below: > They had a limited number of licenses to produce works and they produced more than that. It was at the times that all the physical libraries were closed, one can argue that the demand wasn't bigger than what the public libraries would have been able to handle, and even it had been bigger, it was only because of that exceptional emergency happening. But I agree it would have been much clearer had they made some fixed limits corresponding to the estimated number of the books in the physical libraries.
      - Rebelgecko 6y ago
        I don't think the fact that physical libraries are closed is relevant, because they weren't loaning out physical books. They were loaning out ebooks, which many (most? All?) libraries had continued to do, totally unaffected by COVID-19
      - Spivak 6y ago
        This really doesn’t matter because the work was duplicated regardless of the fact that it was time limited. They had a limited number of licenses to produce works and they produced more than that. Doesn’t matter if it was for 5 days or 5 minutes. If I own a DVD and distribute more than copy simultaneously even if it’s time limited and even if I keep the DRM I’ve still violated copyright.
        nitrogen 6y ago
        Physical books do not come with licenses. Lending falls under first sale doctrine.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        Spivak 6y ago
        Right, but digital lending looks a lot more like software licenses where libraries buy "seats" that correspond the number of simultaneous borrowers. If you have more borrowers than seats you've violated copyright. Most libraries work with publishers to buy lending rights directly but IA is arguing that if I hold one physical copy of a work and promise not to "perform" (copyright jargon is odd) it while it's in my possession then I may transmit that work digitally to another person kinda bridging first sale and seats of digital lending licenses. I guess we'll find out if the court buys it. Because under normal circumstances this is open and shut copyright violation.
      - colonwqbang 6y ago
        > one can argue that the demand wasn't bigger than what the public libraries would have been able to handle By this logic, I can speculate that there is probably at least one copy of the Star Wars ep V DVD sitting in some library's bookshelf not being watched right now. So it's completely ok if I "lend" myself a copy and watch it without paying. Since the demand was probably not higher than what could have been satisfied with the number of phyiscal copies of the DVD present in the libraries of the world today. Or maybe it was, who knows man? This is, to put it mildly, not how copyright works. Internet Archive will have to learn that the hard way now in court. Which sucks, because I really like IA. I wish they will refrain from pulling any more crap like this.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- 9HZZRfNlpR 6y ago
  It's called disrupting the market, I don't see why not. Uber innovated, airbnb innovated and now non profit internet archive.
  - MattGaiser 6y ago
    Uber and Airbnb are still in dubious legal territory themselves, especially when it comes to employment/renters rights.
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    This is ironic because Uber "innovated" by being a taxi service that didn't follow taxi laws and AirBnB "innovated" by being a hotel service that didn't follow hotel laws. Sure enough, the Internet Archive chose to "innovate" libraries with the National Emergency Library, by simply not following copyright laws.
kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
But we're a library so it's okay if we make unlimited copies and destroy a business model in the process.
- zucker42 6y ago
  Facebook destroyed Myspace's business model overnight.
- thechao 6y ago
  In the US, there's no right to a business model. That's ridiculous. What's happened is certain bad actors have deliberately taken advantage of a weakness in the social contract to enrich themselves & lock down the ownership of our own culture. At best, we're dealing with moral turpitude, at worst with genuine sociopaths.
  - dageshi 6y ago
    Without some kind of business model, no writer would be insane enough to write or publish a book because their audience would just read it for free.
    - the_af 6y ago
      This is mistaken. Writers write. It's their calling. Plenty of writers have been "insane enough" to write and publish without a business model for as long as written language has existed.
      - dageshi 6y ago
        No, what's mistaken is not noticing that the world has changed. Websites exist, youtube exists, there are a myriad of ways a writer might "write" or create which does not involve book form. Books remain viable because there's a business model to support them, but take that away and people capable of writing could and would go to modern competing products that didn't exist in the past.
watwut 6y ago
I mean, did not reasonably and responsibly took over anything. They decided that they don't care and can do what they want and acted surprised when rights owners objected.

MattGaiser 6y ago

Had they taken partner library inventory from confirmed closed libraries and allowed that number of books to be lent, then sure. Instead they allowed unlimited borrowing. They fundamentally broke the "controlled" part.

xhkkffbf 6y ago
Exactly. It's almost insulting to everyone to call it "controlled". It's like _1984_'s newspeak.
acqq 6y ago
AFAIK the borrowing was still limited in time and with the DRM protection. Whoever "took" the book at that time lost the access to it long ago already, thanks to the DRM protection remaining and working. Edit: answering "I'm not sure I'd call what they're doing "DRM". Read the court case: explicitly Adobe DRM technology for encrypted e-book formats is mentioned, implemented in different e-book readers and used in this case.
- kevindong 6y ago
  If there's no limits on how many copies they would hand out and no limit on how often you can check out the same book, then for practical purposes it's not time limited.
  - acqq 6y ago
    > no limit on how often you can check out the same book There was always a fixed limit on how long the book remains checked out, and it must have already expired to all that checked it out at that time. The DRM protection remained active. Edit: answering the post below: > They had a limited number of licenses to produce works and they produced more than that. It was at the times that all the physical libraries were closed, one can argue that the demand wasn't bigger than what the public libraries would have been able to handle, and even it had been bigger, it was only because of that exceptional emergency happening. But I agree it would have been much clearer had they made some fixed limits corresponding to the estimated number of the books in the physical libraries.
    - Rebelgecko 6y ago
      I don't think the fact that physical libraries are closed is relevant, because they weren't loaning out physical books. They were loaning out ebooks, which many (most? All?) libraries had continued to do, totally unaffected by COVID-19
    - Spivak 6y ago
      This really doesn’t matter because the work was duplicated regardless of the fact that it was time limited. They had a limited number of licenses to produce works and they produced more than that. Doesn’t matter if it was for 5 days or 5 minutes. If I own a DVD and distribute more than copy simultaneously even if it’s time limited and even if I keep the DRM I’ve still violated copyright.
      - nitrogen 6y ago
        Physical books do not come with licenses. Lending falls under first sale doctrine.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        Spivak 6y ago
        Right, but digital lending looks a lot more like software licenses where libraries buy "seats" that correspond the number of simultaneous borrowers. If you have more borrowers than seats you've violated copyright. Most libraries work with publishers to buy lending rights directly but IA is arguing that if I hold one physical copy of a work and promise not to "perform" (copyright jargon is odd) it while it's in my possession then I may transmit that work digitally to another person kinda bridging first sale and seats of digital lending licenses. I guess we'll find out if the court buys it. Because under normal circumstances this is open and shut copyright violation.
    - colonwqbang 6y ago
      > one can argue that the demand wasn't bigger than what the public libraries would have been able to handle By this logic, I can speculate that there is probably at least one copy of the Star Wars ep V DVD sitting in some library's bookshelf not being watched right now. So it's completely ok if I "lend" myself a copy and watch it without paying. Since the demand was probably not higher than what could have been satisfied with the number of phyiscal copies of the DVD present in the libraries of the world today. Or maybe it was, who knows man? This is, to put it mildly, not how copyright works. Internet Archive will have to learn that the hard way now in court. Which sucks, because I really like IA. I wish they will refrain from pulling any more crap like this.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
9HZZRfNlpR 6y ago
It's called disrupting the market, I don't see why not. Uber innovated, airbnb innovated and now non profit internet archive.
- MattGaiser 6y ago
  Uber and Airbnb are still in dubious legal territory themselves, especially when it comes to employment/renters rights.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  This is ironic because Uber "innovated" by being a taxi service that didn't follow taxi laws and AirBnB "innovated" by being a hotel service that didn't follow hotel laws. Sure enough, the Internet Archive chose to "innovate" libraries with the National Emergency Library, by simply not following copyright laws.

kevin_thibedeau 6y ago

But we're a library so it's okay if we make unlimited copies and destroy a business model in the process.

zucker42 6y ago
Facebook destroyed Myspace's business model overnight.
thechao 6y ago
In the US, there's no right to a business model. That's ridiculous. What's happened is certain bad actors have deliberately taken advantage of a weakness in the social contract to enrich themselves & lock down the ownership of our own culture. At best, we're dealing with moral turpitude, at worst with genuine sociopaths.
- dageshi 6y ago
  Without some kind of business model, no writer would be insane enough to write or publish a book because their audience would just read it for free.
  - the_af 6y ago
    This is mistaken. Writers write. It's their calling. Plenty of writers have been "insane enough" to write and publish without a business model for as long as written language has existed.
    - dageshi 6y ago
      No, what's mistaken is not noticing that the world has changed. Websites exist, youtube exists, there are a myriad of ways a writer might "write" or create which does not involve book form. Books remain viable because there's a business model to support them, but take that away and people capable of writing could and would go to modern competing products that didn't exist in the past.

watwut 6y ago

I mean, did not reasonably and responsibly took over anything. They decided that they don't care and can do what they want and acted surprised when rights owners objected.