4 ms·
Unsurprising that not all of HN is pro-fair use. That's how you digitally send a copy of a book. You're saying something similar to "you wouldn't download a c
by benatkin 4y ago
Unsurprising that not all of HN is pro-fair use.
That's how you digitally send a copy of a book.
You're saying something similar to "you wouldn't download a car".
- endisneigh 4y agoI don’t see how you’re refuting their point
- benatkin 4y ago> You're saying something similar to "you wouldn't download a car". It's applying without considering it. The digital book isn't being kept at the old location because there is no digital book in the physical book. It's the only way to transfer a single copy of a book without destroying the physical copy. Judges should consider stuff like this and it's a disappointing ruling. But go on...
- endisneigh 4y agoExactly. And there lies the issue. Internet archive has the book and lends the book simultaneously. Hence why they lost.
- benatkin 4y ago[dead]
- hackernewds 4y agoThis makes logical sense. Pay for one, lend one.
- jrmg 4y agoThe ruling discusses this (at length!) and concludes that even a buy-one-physical-lend-one-digital scheme would not be acceptable under current law.
- criddell 4y agoDo you think it would have made a difference if they bought three copies of the book and then shredded two of them? That way they would have the original they scanned, their digital version they copy to lend, and the loaned digital copy.
- endisneigh 4y agoNo, because they still wouldn’t be lending out what was bought.
- dahart 4y agoNo, that’s not why they lost. The reason is because they effectively lend it to many people simultaneously, and implement no controls on getting it “returned” (deleted) by the people they lent it to, while even being aware that some of them don’t “return” it. The technicality that they keep a copy of the book while it’s being lent isn’t really at issue here at all. It’s not because there are two copies, it’s because there are three or more copies, given to two or more parties at the same time. It has become “distribution” in the eyes of copyright law, beyond the lending analogy.
- endisneigh 4y agoEven if they did what you described they would still lose. There would be no way to implement a control to prevent an additional simultaneous copy. It's not a technical issue, it's simple impossible inherently. I don't know why companies keep trying this. MP3.com, Aereo, etc. The precedent is clear.
- dahart 4y agoThe question isn’t whether it’s technically possible, the question is whether they even tried, and one of the reasons they lost is not just because they didn’t try at all, they instead looked the other way when they knew the borrowers didn’t “return” the book.
- endisneigh 4y agomy point is that even if they did try, the outcome would've been the same and CDL was doomed from the beginning. their inane emergency CDL plan simply accelerated this outcome
- dahart 4y agoMaybe, but that’s speculation, and others have won fair use claims. The decision in this case explicitly cited the defendant’s lack of effort to control their loaned copies while being aware of infringement.
- hker999 4y agoYet, we should proscute GPL violations when the original GPL code is untouched.
- benatkin 4y agoYou're comparing apples and oranges. In the case of a physical object needing to temporarily go digital, it needs to be sent digitally and the records kept, and of course the physical copy has to be kept. In the case of the GPL there's no physical copy and thus there's no need to consider how to move from one form to the other. To require that a physical object never be used digitally is bad for society.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- yencabulator 4y agoPeople rarely buy copies GPL'ed source code, they obtain a license to the software. Buying something is very different from licensing it.
- denton-scratch 4y ago> Unsurprising that not all of HN is pro-fair use. Isn't "fair use" restricted to (a) short portions of a work, (b) used for specific purposes, such as education or criticism?
- derkades 4y agoThe entire article is about fair use and how what IA is doing is not fair use. I would like the IA to exist, but I agree with the ruling that their fair use argument is nonsense. It's not a derivative work.