3 ms·

> is a controversial legal theory, not something that has any clear statutory basis let the court decide that, you are essentially pronouncing judgement. Maybe

> is a controversial legal theory, not something that has any clear statutory basis let the court decide that, you are essentially pronouncing judgement. Maybe "internet" or "digital" has changed the situation? The post asked people to support IA

causality0 4y ago
The IA is not a religion. We love them dearly but we're still going to call them out when they do something that's blatantly, provocatively illegal, and we're sure as shit not going to support them when they lie about what they did. Especially when everyone was there when they did it and were screaming "oh my God, please do not do this idiotic thing, they are going to smash you like a bug because this is obviously not even hypothetically legal."
- busterarm 4y ago
  I was sad to see the EFF jump off a cliff trying to keep the Register of Copyrights unaccountable to the public and I was sadder to see IA jump off a cliff with this boneheaded move. Some actions are just catastrophically stupid, even when viewed from orbit.
  - causality0 4y ago
    What I want to know is who was behind it. "You can't drive to the library therefore copyright is suspended" is a feat of such mindbending idiocy it had to be driven by a single powerful individual or a small group. I want to know who, because now there's somebody in the IA management that nobody should ever trust again, and until that info comes out the entire organization is suspect. Can you depend on them when they might decide to play legal Russian roulette at any moment?
    - stametseater 4y ago
      > What I want to know is who was behind it. "You can't drive to the library therefore copyright is suspended" is a feat of such mindbending idiocy it had to be driven by a single powerful individual or a small group. Don't underestimate echo chambers. In this case there were at least two echo chambers at play. The first being IA team itself, generally all being on the same wavelength as transgressive mavericks accustomed to pushing the bounds of copyright law. The second was much broader, mainstream society itself panicking about Covid, creating a zeitgeist of flaunting the rules to do something about Covid. I would be surprised if any part of the IA org pushed back on this idea.
      - causality0 4y ago
        I'm all for pushing the bounds of copyright but the IA is too big and too centralized to blatantly flout it. For that you need a small team, like Z Library. The IA is way too important.
        stametseater 4y ago
        To be clear, I'm not defending what they did. Only explaining why I think they thought they could get away with it. They were already accustomed to operating in a transgression gray-zone (and generally getting away with it), and when covid hit and the zeitgeist became "do something!", they felt they had extra license to push boundaries even further.
kmeisthax 4y ago
Digital changed the situation, for the worse. In digital there is no first-sale rights, because bits cannot be sold, only licensed. This was decided a decade ago in exactly the same court the IA is being sued in[0]. The only way they could decide in favor of IA would be to make a very narrow ruling (e.g. 'libraries are special' or 'the DRM makes it OK') or go full judicial activist in ways our extremely conservative SCOTUS would not tolerate. The reason why libraries are even allowed to exist in the first place is because physicality allows you to do things with books that are not "copying" them. Everything you do to a digital file is covered by copyright. When you "move" a file from one computer to another, you actually copy and delete it. When you "read" a file, you copy it from one storage medium to another[1]. If we want digital first sale then we have to fatally wound the existing copyright system. I would absolutely love for the IA to be able to roll back this madness even a little, of course. I don't see that happening. They will put up a good fight, and the judge will roadkill them for the trouble. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_LLC_v._ReDigi_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_LLC_v._ReDigi.... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAI_Systems_Corp._v._Peak_Computer,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAI_Systems_Corp._v._Peak_Comp.... Yes, this is that court case. The one that says "RAM is storage and loading programs into it is infringement".
- wolverine876 4y ago
  Would you share any expert analysis that your comment is based on? All I see are comments by random people on the Internet.

causality0 4y ago

The IA is not a religion. We love them dearly but we're still going to call them out when they do something that's blatantly, provocatively illegal, and we're sure as shit not going to support them when they lie about what they did. Especially when everyone was there when they did it and were screaming "oh my God, please do not do this idiotic thing, they are going to smash you like a bug because this is obviously not even hypothetically legal."

busterarm 4y ago
I was sad to see the EFF jump off a cliff trying to keep the Register of Copyrights unaccountable to the public and I was sadder to see IA jump off a cliff with this boneheaded move. Some actions are just catastrophically stupid, even when viewed from orbit.
- causality0 4y ago
  What I want to know is who was behind it. "You can't drive to the library therefore copyright is suspended" is a feat of such mindbending idiocy it had to be driven by a single powerful individual or a small group. I want to know who, because now there's somebody in the IA management that nobody should ever trust again, and until that info comes out the entire organization is suspect. Can you depend on them when they might decide to play legal Russian roulette at any moment?
  - stametseater 4y ago
    > What I want to know is who was behind it. "You can't drive to the library therefore copyright is suspended" is a feat of such mindbending idiocy it had to be driven by a single powerful individual or a small group. Don't underestimate echo chambers. In this case there were at least two echo chambers at play. The first being IA team itself, generally all being on the same wavelength as transgressive mavericks accustomed to pushing the bounds of copyright law. The second was much broader, mainstream society itself panicking about Covid, creating a zeitgeist of flaunting the rules to do something about Covid. I would be surprised if any part of the IA org pushed back on this idea.
    - causality0 4y ago
      I'm all for pushing the bounds of copyright but the IA is too big and too centralized to blatantly flout it. For that you need a small team, like Z Library. The IA is way too important.
      - stametseater 4y ago
        To be clear, I'm not defending what they did. Only explaining why I think they thought they could get away with it. They were already accustomed to operating in a transgression gray-zone (and generally getting away with it), and when covid hit and the zeitgeist became "do something!", they felt they had extra license to push boundaries even further.

kmeisthax 4y ago

Digital changed the situation, for the worse. In digital there is no first-sale rights, because bits cannot be sold, only licensed. This was decided a decade ago in exactly the same court the IA is being sued in[0]. The only way they could decide in favor of IA would be to make a very narrow ruling (e.g. 'libraries are special' or 'the DRM makes it OK') or go full judicial activist in ways our extremely conservative SCOTUS would not tolerate. The reason why libraries are even allowed to exist in the first place is because physicality allows you to do things with books that are not "copying" them. Everything you do to a digital file is covered by copyright. When you "move" a file from one computer to another, you actually copy and delete it. When you "read" a file, you copy it from one storage medium to another[1]. If we want digital first sale then we have to fatally wound the existing copyright system. I would absolutely love for the IA to be able to roll back this madness even a little, of course. I don't see that happening. They will put up a good fight, and the judge will roadkill them for the trouble. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_LLC_v._ReDigi_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_LLC_v._ReDigi.... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAI_Systems_Corp._v._Peak_Computer,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAI_Systems_Corp._v._Peak_Comp.... Yes, this is that court case. The one that says "RAM is storage and loading programs into it is infringement".

wolverine876 4y ago
Would you share any expert analysis that your comment is based on? All I see are comments by random people on the Internet.