5 ms·

The user is welcome to investigate their own rights on their own time. The government has no interest in that here. The government has a different interest. Th

by cvoss 3y ago

The user is welcome to investigate their own rights on their own time. The government has no interest in that here. The government has a different interest. The library is furnishing a powerful tool to users: the ability to make copies readily. The government's ability to police or regulate this tool so that it complies with copyright law is extremely limited. The government's options are to ban the tool outright, or to permit the tool while impressing a scary warning upon the user, hoping law-abiders will exercise self-control. "If you do something potentially illegal, then you are potentially liable for something illegal." It's a tautological warning, but it still has an effect. And the way they can force the library to communicate the scary warning to the end user is by conditioning the library's liability on the posting of the warning.

mindslight 3y ago
No, the government does not have an interest in creating a chilling effect that goes far beyond the actual law. Rather, it's commercial copyright holders who have that interest, and they lobbied the government to include this scary warning.
- majormajor 3y ago
  The library has an interest in Big Scary Warning because the US has an adversarial legal system which makes it easy for people to cost other people $$$$ on legal fees about stupid shit. You could get these signs with the following path with no lobbying at all: 1) Library puts out copier with no signage 2) Someone makes a bunch of copies of something and starts selling them to people they know 3) That person gets in trouble 4) That person gets angry and lawyers up "how was I supposed to know I couldn't do this, they let me use the machine, they need to indemnify me against this!!" 5) Library wastes money defending this and someone says "ugh let's just put up a stupid sign to deter the fools"
  - omniglottal 3y ago
    The people have an interest in teachers making copies for students. This is fair use. Most of my teachers didn't know this fact. Textbooks skyrocketted in price in recent decades, while critical thinking and reading level plummet. This is important.
  - everforward 3y ago
    > The library has an interest in Big Scary Warning because the US has an adversarial legal system which makes it easy for people to cost other people $$$$ on legal fees about stupid shit. I think this is unlikely here. I would expect such a suit to get tossed out in the early, early phases because the plaintiff doesn't have standing. Per Manuel LUJAN, Jr., Secretary of the Interior, Petitioner v. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, et al. the 3 part test for standing is: 1. The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact," meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent 2. There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court 3. It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury They almost certainly fail the first test. Making bootleg copies of stuff to sell is not a "legally protected interest". They also likely fail the second test because having copiers available, even without signage, isn't causative of copyright infringement. The third is largely speculative, but I would bet a case like that fails that too. I don't even know what law someone would sue under for "they failed to tell me what the law is". Citizens are expected to know what the law is (whether that's reasonable or not is another question), as evidenced by the many laws that don't require mens rea. In all likelihood the way this goes is that person files a lawsuit against the library, the library files a motion for summary judgement, and the judge rules against the plaintiff before discovery even happens. The facts of the case are irrelevant, because even if we presume that everything the plaintiff says is true, the library wouldn't be liable.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  Something to keep in mind is that governments in the US govern at the pleasure of the people so governed. "We the people", as it says in the Preamble of the US Constitution. So if the government has an interest in enforcing copyright, that's because the people (whether or not they are intellectual property holders themselves) told the government to enforce copyright.
  - pbhjpbhj 3y ago
    That's the theory, but not the reality.

by cvoss 3y ago

mindslight 3y ago

No, the government does not have an interest in creating a chilling effect that goes far beyond the actual law. Rather, it's commercial copyright holders who have that interest, and they lobbied the government to include this scary warning.

majormajor 3y ago
The library has an interest in Big Scary Warning because the US has an adversarial legal system which makes it easy for people to cost other people $$$$ on legal fees about stupid shit. You could get these signs with the following path with no lobbying at all: 1) Library puts out copier with no signage 2) Someone makes a bunch of copies of something and starts selling them to people they know 3) That person gets in trouble 4) That person gets angry and lawyers up "how was I supposed to know I couldn't do this, they let me use the machine, they need to indemnify me against this!!" 5) Library wastes money defending this and someone says "ugh let's just put up a stupid sign to deter the fools"
- omniglottal 3y ago
  The people have an interest in teachers making copies for students. This is fair use. Most of my teachers didn't know this fact. Textbooks skyrocketted in price in recent decades, while critical thinking and reading level plummet. This is important.
- everforward 3y ago
  > The library has an interest in Big Scary Warning because the US has an adversarial legal system which makes it easy for people to cost other people $$$$ on legal fees about stupid shit. I think this is unlikely here. I would expect such a suit to get tossed out in the early, early phases because the plaintiff doesn't have standing. Per Manuel LUJAN, Jr., Secretary of the Interior, Petitioner v. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, et al. the 3 part test for standing is: 1. The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact," meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent 2. There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court 3. It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury They almost certainly fail the first test. Making bootleg copies of stuff to sell is not a "legally protected interest". They also likely fail the second test because having copiers available, even without signage, isn't causative of copyright infringement. The third is largely speculative, but I would bet a case like that fails that too. I don't even know what law someone would sue under for "they failed to tell me what the law is". Citizens are expected to know what the law is (whether that's reasonable or not is another question), as evidenced by the many laws that don't require mens rea. In all likelihood the way this goes is that person files a lawsuit against the library, the library files a motion for summary judgement, and the judge rules against the plaintiff before discovery even happens. The facts of the case are irrelevant, because even if we presume that everything the plaintiff says is true, the library wouldn't be liable.
Dalewyn 3y ago
Something to keep in mind is that governments in the US govern at the pleasure of the people so governed. "We the people", as it says in the Preamble of the US Constitution. So if the government has an interest in enforcing copyright, that's because the people (whether or not they are intellectual property holders themselves) told the government to enforce copyright.
- pbhjpbhj 3y ago
  That's the theory, but not the reality.