3 ms·

Except for the fact that is not what they did at all, in no way. Copyright maximalists love to use that argument but it does not make it true. The key point o

by syshum 6y ago

Except for the fact that is not what they did at all, in no way. Copyright maximalists love to use that argument but it does not make it true. The key point of their response was "physical copies of digitized books do not circulate" during the emergency the Public Libraries where close, thus legal physical copies where not circulating IMO the publishers need to prove the Lending Library loaned more companies of each claimed work, than what was locked away in physical libraries that were closed. if they can do that (they cant) then they have a case, if not they should be tossed out of court

duxup 6y ago
Could I loan out a book that a library isn't circulating... just because I believe it isn't circulating? Obviously IA might have closer ties to libraries than I do, but it's not clear to me what exactly happened that allowed them to loan a ton more. I love IA, but their explanation for what exactly happened regarding loaning library books that were not circulating seemed to me come about ... only after the lawsuit phase started. Their initial announcement seemed to be that there was an emergency and they were loaning out books because libraries (and schools) were closed... but that's not the same thing as an orchestrated digital lending deal that suddenly allowed them to loan a lot more than they had in the past. A lot of explanations from IA seem to have been either poorly communicated, or sort of dance around this idea that they were doing digital lending properly... but without actually saying what they were doing...
jawns 6y ago
> The publishers need to prove the Lending Library loaned more [copies] of each claimed work than what was locked away in physical libraries that were closed. The Internet Archive suddenly gets the right to distribute books owned by a public library simply because the public library is closed? Who struck up that deal? The publishers need only show that the Lending Library loaned more copies of each claimed work than what the Internet Archive owned and had the right to lend. That is sufficient to establish they engaged in uncontrolled digital lending, which is indistinguishable from piracy for all practical purposes.
- stOneskull 6y ago
  the publishers could just let it go.
xhkkffbf 6y ago
Why are only libraries the only possible source? The readers could -- I know this will shock the ears around here-- pay for what they consume. Amazon remained open and so did many other bookstores like Powell's. No one was denied books. They were only slightly inconvenienced by not getting them for free.
- syshum 6y ago
  I did already pay for them via my tax dollars that were used by the Public Libraries to obtain them for me so I and my fellow tax payers could borrow them.
  - xhkkffbf 6y ago
    And those books are still sitting in the shelf. No one is taking them away. Just because the library is closed doesn't mean you can run up the pirate flag. Piracy hurts artists.
    - syshum 6y ago
      Publishers often refer to copying they don't approve of as “piracy.” In this way, they imply that it is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on them. Based on such propaganda, they have procured laws in most of the world to forbid copying in most (or sometimes all) circumstances. (They are still pressuring to make these prohibitions more complete.) If you don't believe that copying not approved by the publisher is just like kidnapping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word “piracy” to describe it. Neutral terms such as “unauthorized copying” (or “prohibited copying” for the situation where it is illegal) are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as “sharing information with your neighbor.” A US judge, presiding over a trial for copyright infringement, recognized that “piracy” and “theft” are smear words.

by syshum 6y ago

duxup 6y ago

Could I loan out a book that a library isn't circulating... just because I believe it isn't circulating? Obviously IA might have closer ties to libraries than I do, but it's not clear to me what exactly happened that allowed them to loan a ton more. I love IA, but their explanation for what exactly happened regarding loaning library books that were not circulating seemed to me come about ... only after the lawsuit phase started. Their initial announcement seemed to be that there was an emergency and they were loaning out books because libraries (and schools) were closed... but that's not the same thing as an orchestrated digital lending deal that suddenly allowed them to loan a lot more than they had in the past. A lot of explanations from IA seem to have been either poorly communicated, or sort of dance around this idea that they were doing digital lending properly... but without actually saying what they were doing...

jawns 6y ago

> The publishers need to prove the Lending Library loaned more [copies] of each claimed work than what was locked away in physical libraries that were closed. The Internet Archive suddenly gets the right to distribute books owned by a public library simply because the public library is closed? Who struck up that deal? The publishers need only show that the Lending Library loaned more copies of each claimed work than what the Internet Archive owned and had the right to lend. That is sufficient to establish they engaged in uncontrolled digital lending, which is indistinguishable from piracy for all practical purposes.

stOneskull 6y ago
the publishers could just let it go.

xhkkffbf 6y ago

Why are only libraries the only possible source? The readers could -- I know this will shock the ears around here-- pay for what they consume. Amazon remained open and so did many other bookstores like Powell's. No one was denied books. They were only slightly inconvenienced by not getting them for free.

syshum 6y ago
I did already pay for them via my tax dollars that were used by the Public Libraries to obtain them for me so I and my fellow tax payers could borrow them.
- xhkkffbf 6y ago
  And those books are still sitting in the shelf. No one is taking them away. Just because the library is closed doesn't mean you can run up the pirate flag. Piracy hurts artists.
  - syshum 6y ago
    Publishers often refer to copying they don't approve of as “piracy.” In this way, they imply that it is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on them. Based on such propaganda, they have procured laws in most of the world to forbid copying in most (or sometimes all) circumstances. (They are still pressuring to make these prohibitions more complete.) If you don't believe that copying not approved by the publisher is just like kidnapping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word “piracy” to describe it. Neutral terms such as “unauthorized copying” (or “prohibited copying” for the situation where it is illegal) are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as “sharing information with your neighbor.” A US judge, presiding over a trial for copyright infringement, recognized that “piracy” and “theft” are smear words.