10 ms·

Whilst they were objectively “wrong” in their actions, what they did was clearly for the greater good. Requesting a summary judgment reminded me of that. Respec

• worik 4y ago
  > objectively “wrong” How so? Can you explain? Are libraries, too, "objectively wrong” in that analysis? cheers
  • r3trohack3r 4y ago
    > Given the impact of the public health emergency, the Internet Archive decided to ease its book lending restrictions and allow multiple people to check out the same digital copy of a book at once. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/07/14/cucd-j14.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/07/14/cucd-j14.html Libraries can rent books they’ve purchased. Generally they can’t fire up the photocopier and make copies of books they’ve purchased.
    • Mezzie 4y ago
      Actually, sometimes you are able to. ILL in academic libraries or special collections/archives sometimes requires doing so (e.g. because the original material is bundled in a giant 10 year journal binding). That said, legal agreements between research libraries and academic publishers are basically opaque dark magic.
    • pxeboot 4y ago
      Anecdotal, but every library I have ever been in had a copier that patrons could use to make copies of books for a couple cents per page.
      • JoshTriplett 4y ago
        Likewise.
      • sp332 4y ago
        Some copying is covered by fair use. Making a whole copy of a book, especially in a way that might limit the copyright owner's profits, usually doesn't count. I've seen signs in libraries like this one https://www.shopbrodart.com/Library-School-Equipment/Signage/Wall-Mount-Signs/_/Brodart-Sign-Shop-CA-Photocopy-Copyright-Restrictions-Sign/ https://www.shopbrodart.com/Library-School-Equipment/Signage... warning about copyright infringement.
        • deleted 4y ago
          [deleted]
        • nulbyte 4y ago
          Those signs may seem scary, but they're just stating a basic fact that everyone already knows: If you commit copyright infringement, you have committed copyright infringement.
    • margalabargala 4y ago
      That's a relatively new development, though. Historically libraries were responsible for making copies of the works they held.
    • cdev_gl 4y ago
      When I buy a physical book, I can lend that book to a friend. I own the book. When a library buys a physical book, they can loan that copy out to patrons. They own the physical book. For over ten years now, libraries have taken a single physical book, scanned it and removed the book from circulation, and lent out a single ebook. This has been a common practice founded on an interpretation of fair use laws, which allow format shifting (recording a vhs to DVD, for example) and lending, and also copyright laws which explicitly mention the legality of digitizing books for accessibility reasons, to serve the visually impaired. This "one physical book in storage equals one ebook" lending is the "controlled digital lending" the archive does, and is the issue at stake in this suit. Publishers argue that libraries should not be allowed to lend any ebook except those which they set a specific lending limit to- charging the library a fee every X number of checkouts or every X number of months. This is obviously not how lending physical books works- the library can buy a hardcover and loan it out to patrons, repairing the spine and binding over and over, eventually moving it to a special collection for viewing on site when it's hundreds of years old and can't be handled. As a seperate, and legally shaker issue, the internet archive created the "national emergency library" during the pandemic. The logic here was that nearly every library in the country was closed, there were within those libraries physical copies of these books that weren't being lent out, and so the same concept as controlled digital lending could apply. This move by the archive was signed onto and supported by thousands of libraries around the country, who agreed that their uncirculated physical copies could stand in for the extra copies checked out of the archives emergency library. It's important to note the archive does not loan any book published in the last five years, period. This is a self imposed limitation that your neighborhood library does not work under, but it means that the "lost sales" publishers allege were not of new books. Nobody ever got screwed out of bestseller status because too many library patrons read their book, and that goes doubly so in this case. All that said, the issue isn't whether the internet archive messed up with it's national emergency library. It's whether the whole concept of loaning a book is limited to printed copies, and thus ebooks must be repurchased by libraries ad nauseum-- or if libraries can keep a physical copy in a storage room and loan out a digital copy one at a time, exactly as they do now. Bottom line, our libraries (and especially their ebook collections) will be much poorer if this decision goes to publishers.
      • 4y ago
  • jw1224 4y ago
    From what I understand, they broke the terms of a legally-binding contract with the publishers. They were allowed to act as a “digital library” — and lend out copyrighted works for free — but only one “copy” of the file could be released at a time. This makes more sense for real-world libraries (where books are physical objects with manufacturing costs) but this doesn’t really translate to digital files. During the pandemic, when real-world libraries were shut, the Internet Archive took it upon themselves to give away an unlimited number of copyrighted works. Libraries are a net public good to society, and unexpectedly we found ourselves without them. The Internet Archive was uniquely positioned to share knowledge and educational materials with the world, free of charge, at a time when many people had no other access to them.
    • sp332 4y ago
      They do not have a contract with the publishers. Their normal CDL policy (one digital copy loaned out per physical book in the archive) is legal under fair use. The publishers also have a motion for summary judgement, which would prevent them from doing this. The publishers would rather rent them a digital copy for a lot of money, that is either time-limited or has a cap on the total number of times it can be checked out before the Archive would have to pay again.
    • worik 4y ago
      That is a good answer
• basilgohar 4y ago
  Legality and morality may be misaligned. It is important to never equate the two in a society of man made laws. This is doubly true when wealthy and powerful interests have so much ability to influence laws through legalized bribing (i.e., "lobbying").
• SamReidHughes 4y ago
  Piracy isn't for the greater good. Copyright is.
  • teddyh 4y ago
    Well, that’s very much debatable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_copyright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_copyright http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.ht...
  • charonn0 4y ago
    The greater good that both serve is the availability of creative works. Copyright serves it by rewarding authors of new creative works. Piracy serves it by increasing availability of existing creative works.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • mistrial9 4y ago
    IA is not disregarding copyright, nor the publishers.. instead IA is changing the rules.. rules in which money does pay a role. A simple lens of conservative -> we want the rules to operate as they have, and liberal -> we want to change the rules .. might apply here. Casting aspersions with the land-mine word "piracy" does not increase the intellectual level of the discussion, nor is it even accurate here IMO.
    • TylerE 4y ago
      So, if I get pulled over doing 200, do I get to just tell the cop ‘I’m in a hurry, I changed the rules’.
      • deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    • SamReidHughes 4y ago
• YPPH 4y ago
  A party applies for summary judgment to be entered when, speaking in very general terms, the other side's case is not reasonably arguable. That is, no reasonable jury/judge could find for the other party. It doesn't have anything to do with morals, it's a procedural process that avoids the need for an expensive trial to defend a hopeless claim. Of course, a party might lose a summary judgement application but ultimately win at trial.
  • jw1224 4y ago
    The general consensus I’ve read on HN is that the IA is pretty clearly guilty. But they’re the ones seeking the summary judgment in their own favour. Hence I respect their position, for taking a moral stance despite not having much of a legal leg to stand on.
    • indymike 4y ago
      HN is generally a bad predictor of what courts will do.