4 ms·

> I think it's irresponsible of the Internet Archive to play so fast and loose with it. That's what I think too. Despite what the HN hivemind wants to think, t

by chx 4y ago

> I think it's irresponsible of the Internet Archive to play so fast and loose with it. That's what I think too. Despite what the HN hivemind wants to think, this was a crystal clear act of piracy and the Internet Archive will suffer for it. I have no idea what they were thinking. They would need to demonstrate they had a strict license counting system in place where libraries put in what they had and the system counted how much it borrowed which clearly they didn't have , they just said "go ahead and borrow". Say, they borrowed out 10 copies of a work at a time, this would be allowed if they had 10 licenses of it and if they can't show they had it which I bet dollars to doughnuts they didn't then they will be forced to damages for each of those. I do not even know where the damages will stop. This will be a terrible massacre. Dura lex, sed lex! The judge will throw out the argument "there was in theory this many copies or even more at closed libraries" -- just because it is true, the law simply doesn't allow for this. I only wish the best for IA but they completely botched this. I can't understand how, they have good lawyers. Hell, https://controlleddigitallending.org/ https://controlleddigitallending.org/ only dares to say > When CDL is appropriately tailored to reflect print book market conditions and controls are properly implemented, CDL may be permissible under existing copyright law. It does not say "it is". Ps. if you are downvoting for this, where am I wrong? Where is this allowed in the Berne Convention or US Code 17? What do you think applies here if not https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/108 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/108 ? > Except as otherwise provided in this title and notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archives, or any of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work, No more than one copy. Go ahead, show me the carve out for, I dunno, inaccessible works or something that overrides this. This is the law, your preferences -- which are the same as mine which loves the Internet Archive and doesn't much book publishers -- have zero relevance here. You downvote because you don't like what I say or think that I want harm for the IA and it's not true -- but they will suffer for this. How can you not see this?

boomboomsubban 4y ago
>Go ahead, show me the carve out for, I dunno, inaccessible works or something that overrides this. The IA's argument is that it's covered under section 107 as "fair use" as it's a nonprofit educational act with seemingly no negative effect on the value of the work. You can disagree but you're tone is that you're absolutely right and anyone who doubts it is denying reality.
adhesive_wombat 4y ago
> They would need to demonstrate they had a strict license counting system in place where libraries put in what they had and the system counted how much it borrowed They already do have such a system. If they "have" multiple copies of a book edition, then the "borrow" period is 14 days. If they have only one copy, then it's only one hour, so that the book remains more available to others. This means that they are aware of how many "licences" they hold and reference count the accesses to each edition against that figure. Whether they indeed bypassed that system for the NEL and provably allowed excessive accesses being their holdings, well, that's for the court to hear.
- boomboomsubban 4y ago
  >Whether they indeed bypassed that system for the NEL and provably allowed excessive accesses being their holdings, well, that's for the court to hear Pretty sure this summary judgment openly admits they did.
  - adhesive_wombat 4y ago
    From the summary judgement request: > The Internet Archive’s belief that the NEL’s loaned copies would be fewer than the number of existing non-circulating physical copies proved to be correct. So the Internet Archive claim it didn't, though it's not providing complete and concrete proof that no title went over the limit. Then again, it's on the prosecution to demonstrate that they actually did.
    - boomboomsubban 4y ago
      Keep reading after that line. They're talking about the total number of out-of-circulation copies of a book in all closed US public libraries, not the ones they have the explicit right to use. And earlier they say the emergency library temporarily lifted the 1 to 1 ratio controls, which is openly admitting they did.
account42 4y ago
> Despite what the HN hivemind wants to think, this was a crystal clear act of piracy I wasn't aware that the IA had any naval vessels.
- adhesive_wombat 4y ago
  It's not piracy if it's a naval vessel. If it's a sanctioned military action, it's "defending national interests".

by chx 4y ago

boomboomsubban 4y ago

>Go ahead, show me the carve out for, I dunno, inaccessible works or something that overrides this. The IA's argument is that it's covered under section 107 as "fair use" as it's a nonprofit educational act with seemingly no negative effect on the value of the work. You can disagree but you're tone is that you're absolutely right and anyone who doubts it is denying reality.

adhesive_wombat 4y ago

> They would need to demonstrate they had a strict license counting system in place where libraries put in what they had and the system counted how much it borrowed They already do have such a system. If they "have" multiple copies of a book edition, then the "borrow" period is 14 days. If they have only one copy, then it's only one hour, so that the book remains more available to others. This means that they are aware of how many "licences" they hold and reference count the accesses to each edition against that figure. Whether they indeed bypassed that system for the NEL and provably allowed excessive accesses being their holdings, well, that's for the court to hear.

boomboomsubban 4y ago
>Whether they indeed bypassed that system for the NEL and provably allowed excessive accesses being their holdings, well, that's for the court to hear Pretty sure this summary judgment openly admits they did.
- adhesive_wombat 4y ago
  From the summary judgement request: > The Internet Archive’s belief that the NEL’s loaned copies would be fewer than the number of existing non-circulating physical copies proved to be correct. So the Internet Archive claim it didn't, though it's not providing complete and concrete proof that no title went over the limit. Then again, it's on the prosecution to demonstrate that they actually did.
  - boomboomsubban 4y ago
    Keep reading after that line. They're talking about the total number of out-of-circulation copies of a book in all closed US public libraries, not the ones they have the explicit right to use. And earlier they say the emergency library temporarily lifted the 1 to 1 ratio controls, which is openly admitting they did.

account42 4y ago

> Despite what the HN hivemind wants to think, this was a crystal clear act of piracy I wasn't aware that the IA had any naval vessels.

adhesive_wombat 4y ago
It's not piracy if it's a naval vessel. If it's a sanctioned military action, it's "defending national interests".