7 ms·

Does anyone have a legal theory under which IA can potentially defend itself here? I am no legal expert, but I just can't fathom an avenue where they win this c

Does anyone have a legal theory under which IA can potentially defend itself here? I am no legal expert, but I just can't fathom an avenue where they win this case. The merits of copyright law can be debated, but given that the law exists, what legal framework can IA use to fight this, or is their losing the case a forgone conclusion?

crazygringo 6y ago
I haven't heard of anyone suggesting any legal strategy by which they can win. I've really been scratching my head trying to figure out what their overall strategy with this has been.
- nickff 6y ago
  It looks like they're trying to shame the publishers, perhaps in the hopes that 'cancel culture' will benefit IA.
  - CM30 6y ago
    For better or worse, that probably is a more and more plausible strategy to deal with lawsuits and threats nowadays. If you can get enough people to vocally support you over the other side, paint the parties suing you as bullies going after the little guy, make it a giant media controversy that gets hundreds of newspaper articles and YouTube videos etc, then a large number of corporations will probably back down/drop the lawsuit. After all, reputation is king, and companies fear a PR disaster more than just about anything. Whether that'd actually work for the IA on the other hand... well that's a whole different story.
- a1369209993 6y ago
  > I've really been scratching my head trying to figure out what their overall strategy with this has been. They're doing what's right, with - it appears - insufficient concern for pragmatism.
  - paulcole 6y ago
    Totally disagree that they’re doing what’s right here. They did what they wanted to and thought they’d be able to get away with it. They still might, who knows.
  - jjcon 6y ago
    > They're doing what's right Stealing from artists and authors is right? Just because a company you admire does something wrong doesn’t mean you need to resort to a fanboyish defense. More than 90% of libraries already have digital lending programs that they established legally following all the rules. IA completely disregarded these processes not to mention publishers and authors rights - they just opted to distribut pirated copies of works.
    - devenblake 6y ago
      Thoughts cannot be stolen, nor can words on a page, nor can bits and bytes. For something to be stolen, the single instance of that object must be transferred from one entity to another. In this scenario, the existing book was copied from one entity to another. You may believe the Internet Archive was committing an act of theft, but your notions of what theft is are based on an obsolete idea of what property can be.
      - jjcon 6y ago
        > but your notions of what theft is are based on an obsolete idea of what property can be You mean based on internationally recognized standards and laws, unlike your stance which is based on hot air. Seriously, where do you even come up with this stuff? Are you one of those sovereign citizen types?
        jachee 6y ago
        Just because something is a law, does not mean it is what's right.
        6y ago
Igelau 6y ago
From the beginning this has looked like IA threatening to self-destruct by forcing a showdown they can't win. I can't tell if they are courting another party to bail them out or if this just fits someone's blaze-of-glory narrative.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
breck 6y ago
I think they've got a tough legal case. I think they will lose the battle, but I hope win the war. Maybe they can somehow get a win in the court of public opinion. Since they are probably going to lose anyway, I hope they go down swinging and start the conversation to abolish all copyright and patent laws. I for one am tired of all these obtuse groups who think their minuscule contributions to our common intellectual library, which are mostly regurgitated ideas from the past thousands of years, entitle them to some monopoly profits and control over others. Personally I think the 13th Amendment should be their argument. But I think that's a losing strategy, at least for the next 20-50 years until popular opinion wakes up. But if you're going to lose anyway...
- kmeisthax 6y ago
  The 13th Amendment would not come into play here, unless you can somehow prove fictional characters are sentient, or whole-brain emulation becomes a thing and people's brain scans start getting copyright ownership attached to them. Those would make for a great SCP but aren't valid legal arguments today. There will never be widespread support for copyright abolishment, for two reasons: 1. The vast majority of people are apathetic to the issue when it doesn't affect them. There's more public support for abolishing all private property than there is for abolishing or even limiting copyright. Hell, even the Soviets had copyright laws, albeit weak ones. 2. The court of public opinion has a known bias in favor of individual creator-owners. It is very easy to denounce large publishing conglomerates suing individuals for every infringement, but it's harder to denounce, say, a beloved indie creator going after cheaply-made knockoff merch on AliExpress. >I for one am tired of all these obtuse groups who think their minuscule contributions to our common intellectual library, which are mostly regurgitated ideas from the past thousands of years, entitle them to some monopoly profits and control over others. This sentiment is toxic. Making the author out to be the bad guy is a losing opinion (see factor 2). Any copyright reform that attempts to justify itself with "authors are regurgitating ideas" is doomed to failure. The people are not going to go for "authors shouldn't own their work", and arguing that is going to make it harder to argue for more limited reforms.
  - breck 6y ago

crazygringo 6y ago

I haven't heard of anyone suggesting any legal strategy by which they can win. I've really been scratching my head trying to figure out what their overall strategy with this has been.

nickff 6y ago
It looks like they're trying to shame the publishers, perhaps in the hopes that 'cancel culture' will benefit IA.
- CM30 6y ago
  For better or worse, that probably is a more and more plausible strategy to deal with lawsuits and threats nowadays. If you can get enough people to vocally support you over the other side, paint the parties suing you as bullies going after the little guy, make it a giant media controversy that gets hundreds of newspaper articles and YouTube videos etc, then a large number of corporations will probably back down/drop the lawsuit. After all, reputation is king, and companies fear a PR disaster more than just about anything. Whether that'd actually work for the IA on the other hand... well that's a whole different story.
a1369209993 6y ago
> I've really been scratching my head trying to figure out what their overall strategy with this has been. They're doing what's right, with - it appears - insufficient concern for pragmatism.
- paulcole 6y ago
  Totally disagree that they’re doing what’s right here. They did what they wanted to and thought they’d be able to get away with it. They still might, who knows.
- jjcon 6y ago
  > They're doing what's right Stealing from artists and authors is right? Just because a company you admire does something wrong doesn’t mean you need to resort to a fanboyish defense. More than 90% of libraries already have digital lending programs that they established legally following all the rules. IA completely disregarded these processes not to mention publishers and authors rights - they just opted to distribut pirated copies of works.
  - devenblake 6y ago
    Thoughts cannot be stolen, nor can words on a page, nor can bits and bytes. For something to be stolen, the single instance of that object must be transferred from one entity to another. In this scenario, the existing book was copied from one entity to another. You may believe the Internet Archive was committing an act of theft, but your notions of what theft is are based on an obsolete idea of what property can be.
    - jjcon 6y ago
      > but your notions of what theft is are based on an obsolete idea of what property can be You mean based on internationally recognized standards and laws, unlike your stance which is based on hot air. Seriously, where do you even come up with this stuff? Are you one of those sovereign citizen types?
      - jachee 6y ago
        Just because something is a law, does not mean it is what's right.
        6y ago

Igelau 6y ago

From the beginning this has looked like IA threatening to self-destruct by forcing a showdown they can't win. I can't tell if they are courting another party to bail them out or if this just fits someone's blaze-of-glory narrative.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

breck 6y ago

I think they've got a tough legal case. I think they will lose the battle, but I hope win the war. Maybe they can somehow get a win in the court of public opinion. Since they are probably going to lose anyway, I hope they go down swinging and start the conversation to abolish all copyright and patent laws. I for one am tired of all these obtuse groups who think their minuscule contributions to our common intellectual library, which are mostly regurgitated ideas from the past thousands of years, entitle them to some monopoly profits and control over others. Personally I think the 13th Amendment should be their argument. But I think that's a losing strategy, at least for the next 20-50 years until popular opinion wakes up. But if you're going to lose anyway...

kmeisthax 6y ago
The 13th Amendment would not come into play here, unless you can somehow prove fictional characters are sentient, or whole-brain emulation becomes a thing and people's brain scans start getting copyright ownership attached to them. Those would make for a great SCP but aren't valid legal arguments today. There will never be widespread support for copyright abolishment, for two reasons: 1. The vast majority of people are apathetic to the issue when it doesn't affect them. There's more public support for abolishing all private property than there is for abolishing or even limiting copyright. Hell, even the Soviets had copyright laws, albeit weak ones. 2. The court of public opinion has a known bias in favor of individual creator-owners. It is very easy to denounce large publishing conglomerates suing individuals for every infringement, but it's harder to denounce, say, a beloved indie creator going after cheaply-made knockoff merch on AliExpress. >I for one am tired of all these obtuse groups who think their minuscule contributions to our common intellectual library, which are mostly regurgitated ideas from the past thousands of years, entitle them to some monopoly profits and control over others. This sentiment is toxic. Making the author out to be the bad guy is a losing opinion (see factor 2). Any copyright reform that attempts to justify itself with "authors are regurgitating ideas" is doomed to failure. The people are not going to go for "authors shouldn't own their work", and arguing that is going to make it harder to argue for more limited reforms.
- breck 6y ago