3 ms·

> But breaking it before it has changed is risky and foolish, and does more harm than good. That's how most laws get abolished.

bawolff 4y ago
Sometimes, but its also how people end up in prison.
- CaptainNegative 4y ago
  Precedent for federal cases is typically first set at the appellate level. If you're working your activism through the courts, you usually have to lose before you can win.
  - ocdtrekkie 4y ago
    There is a less than zero percent chance this Supreme Court decides in favor of the Internet Archive, if they ever even cared to hear the case.
    - bentley 4y ago
      “This” Supreme Court? As opposed to any other Supreme Court? Which Supreme Courts have been friendly to fair use and opposed copyright expansionist arguments?
      - thewildginger 4y ago
        While this was the southern district of new York, the 9th circuit court of appeals ruled on a similar issue with Vidangel on 2016. They would buy DVDs and let people pay to watch a censored version, even going so far as to purchase a physical version for every one that was streamed for censorship, and they claimed fair use. They were ruled against and filed for chapter 11. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_v._VidAngel#:~:text=Judge%20Birotte's%20order%20blocked%20VidAngel,VidAngel%20streamed%20was%20not%20an https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_v._VidAngel#:~:text=J... I'm sure someone will reply to tell us how it's not really that similar but I thought there were some parallels
        bawolff 4y ago
        And honestly they probably have a better (albeit still terrible) case because it was transformative
mardifoufs 4y ago
Not with such a completely one sided court case. If anything, this will probably kill the Open Libraries (lending digital books backed 1:1 by real copies of them) model of lending entirely (the court decision mentions no right to digitally lend copyrighted material). Publishers seemed to not really care about it before the IA covid library stunt, but now it might very well die.
- wmidwestranger 4y ago
  If the publishers could push the button and kill digitally lending at their whim then there isn't a reason to pretend it was actually alive and well, in any real sense. I believe Machiavelli observed, "War is never avoided, only delayed for the benefit of one participant or another." Librarians have always had a zealous faction that has even frustrated United States Federal Agents, often at the least convenient time for the librarians who did so. Given the money and influence wielded by the publishers, how would the digital librarians fair better in the future? They're better off winning or losing here and letting the natural consequences of the publisher's decisions come to bite them in the ass than building further efforts on a rug the publishers can yank from beneath them at any time.

bawolff 4y ago

Sometimes, but its also how people end up in prison.

CaptainNegative 4y ago
Precedent for federal cases is typically first set at the appellate level. If you're working your activism through the courts, you usually have to lose before you can win.
- ocdtrekkie 4y ago
  There is a less than zero percent chance this Supreme Court decides in favor of the Internet Archive, if they ever even cared to hear the case.
  - bentley 4y ago
    “This” Supreme Court? As opposed to any other Supreme Court? Which Supreme Courts have been friendly to fair use and opposed copyright expansionist arguments?
    - thewildginger 4y ago
      While this was the southern district of new York, the 9th circuit court of appeals ruled on a similar issue with Vidangel on 2016. They would buy DVDs and let people pay to watch a censored version, even going so far as to purchase a physical version for every one that was streamed for censorship, and they claimed fair use. They were ruled against and filed for chapter 11. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_v._VidAngel#:~:text=Judge%20Birotte's%20order%20blocked%20VidAngel,VidAngel%20streamed%20was%20not%20an https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_v._VidAngel#:~:text=J... I'm sure someone will reply to tell us how it's not really that similar but I thought there were some parallels
      - bawolff 4y ago
        And honestly they probably have a better (albeit still terrible) case because it was transformative

mardifoufs 4y ago

Not with such a completely one sided court case. If anything, this will probably kill the Open Libraries (lending digital books backed 1:1 by real copies of them) model of lending entirely (the court decision mentions no right to digitally lend copyrighted material). Publishers seemed to not really care about it before the IA covid library stunt, but now it might very well die.

wmidwestranger 4y ago
If the publishers could push the button and kill digitally lending at their whim then there isn't a reason to pretend it was actually alive and well, in any real sense. I believe Machiavelli observed, "War is never avoided, only delayed for the benefit of one participant or another." Librarians have always had a zealous faction that has even frustrated United States Federal Agents, often at the least convenient time for the librarians who did so. Given the money and influence wielded by the publishers, how would the digital librarians fair better in the future? They're better off winning or losing here and letting the natural consequences of the publisher's decisions come to bite them in the ass than building further efforts on a rug the publishers can yank from beneath them at any time.