6 ms·

While I agree that the book lending is only a small portion of the value provided by the IA, it makes sense that they're making a stand here. Losing this battle

While I agree that the book lending is only a small portion of the value provided by the IA, it makes sense that they're making a stand here. Losing this battle would establish precedent that format-shifting legally aquired copies of media is not protected under fair use, which would be disastrous to preservation efforts of all kinds going forward.

bombcar 3y ago
I think they're intentionally tying it all together because they know that the "emergency library" was a heap of shit (you can't argue you can digitally lend the same document multiple times simultaneously, it makes no sense). They're basically holding the Internet Archive hostage to try to force this thing through.
jprete 3y ago
I think it's a serious mistake that they allowed unlimited borrowers at a time, because that shifts from fair-use format shifting to effectively making multiple copies of the format-shifted document. That said, IANAL and I don't know what actual legal conclusions were arrived at from the trial or appeals.
- account42 3y ago
  I think it's a serious mistake that they used DRM at all. That positions them right along the publisher narrative which is exactly where they should not be.
LeoPanthera 3y ago
This has nothing to do with format shifting at all. The IA's normal book-lending service works that way, but the "emergency library" allowed more copies of a book to be "borrowed" than they actually physically owned. This is straight-up piracy, and there's a 0% chance of it being legally justified.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  This might kill the Internet Archive as a legal entity in the US if the outcome is particularly unfavorable, but LibGen, Scihub, Z-Library, Anna's Archive etc aren't going away. > This is straight-up piracy, and there's a 0% chance of it being legally justified. Agree to disagree. Copyright has worn out its welcome when it is locking up culture for life + 70 years at a time [1] [2]. The Internet Archive could archive and maintain these works in cold storage (both physical and digital), only to make them public again 100-200 years from now, but that would not be keeping with "Universal Access to All Knowledge." Disk and bandwidth is cheap, and the planet is big. [1] https://www.copyright.gov/history/copyright-exhibit/lifecycle/ https://www.copyright.gov/history/copyright-exhibit/lifecycl... [2] https://www.princeton.edu/news/2003/02/21/lessig-were-copyright-war https://www.princeton.edu/news/2003/02/21/lessig-were-copyri... (no affiliation, but a fan and a supporter, and believe in defending public goods)
  - forgetfreeman 3y ago
    It may indeed kill the project and it's a tragic example of play stupid games win stupid prizes. There have been enough decades of lost lawsuits now that any thinking person ought to know better than to go sticking a fork in the outlet that is distributing copyrighted materials.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - coldpie 3y ago
      I think you've forgotten what 2020 was like. Libraries were closed. Schools were closed. Book stores were closed. Shipping was majorly slowed. Basically all public services were inaccessible to most people. Now imagine you're the kind of person who who founds and runs The Internet Archive for 25 years, not just another HN commenter bored at work. You're sitting in front of the button to help millions of people regain access to something the pandemic took away from them. Do you push the button, or do you cower away because some rich prick might sue you later? I don't think the IA exists without the kind of person who pushes that button.

bombcar 3y ago

I think they're intentionally tying it all together because they know that the "emergency library" was a heap of shit (you can't argue you can digitally lend the same document multiple times simultaneously, it makes no sense). They're basically holding the Internet Archive hostage to try to force this thing through.

jprete 3y ago

I think it's a serious mistake that they allowed unlimited borrowers at a time, because that shifts from fair-use format shifting to effectively making multiple copies of the format-shifted document. That said, IANAL and I don't know what actual legal conclusions were arrived at from the trial or appeals.

account42 3y ago
I think it's a serious mistake that they used DRM at all. That positions them right along the publisher narrative which is exactly where they should not be.

LeoPanthera 3y ago

This has nothing to do with format shifting at all. The IA's normal book-lending service works that way, but the "emergency library" allowed more copies of a book to be "borrowed" than they actually physically owned. This is straight-up piracy, and there's a 0% chance of it being legally justified.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
toomuchtodo 3y ago
This might kill the Internet Archive as a legal entity in the US if the outcome is particularly unfavorable, but LibGen, Scihub, Z-Library, Anna's Archive etc aren't going away. > This is straight-up piracy, and there's a 0% chance of it being legally justified. Agree to disagree. Copyright has worn out its welcome when it is locking up culture for life + 70 years at a time [1] [2]. The Internet Archive could archive and maintain these works in cold storage (both physical and digital), only to make them public again 100-200 years from now, but that would not be keeping with "Universal Access to All Knowledge." Disk and bandwidth is cheap, and the planet is big. [1] https://www.copyright.gov/history/copyright-exhibit/lifecycle/ https://www.copyright.gov/history/copyright-exhibit/lifecycl... [2] https://www.princeton.edu/news/2003/02/21/lessig-were-copyright-war https://www.princeton.edu/news/2003/02/21/lessig-were-copyri... (no affiliation, but a fan and a supporter, and believe in defending public goods)
- forgetfreeman 3y ago
  It may indeed kill the project and it's a tragic example of play stupid games win stupid prizes. There have been enough decades of lost lawsuits now that any thinking person ought to know better than to go sticking a fork in the outlet that is distributing copyrighted materials.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - coldpie 3y ago
    I think you've forgotten what 2020 was like. Libraries were closed. Schools were closed. Book stores were closed. Shipping was majorly slowed. Basically all public services were inaccessible to most people. Now imagine you're the kind of person who who founds and runs The Internet Archive for 25 years, not just another HN commenter bored at work. You're sitting in front of the button to help millions of people regain access to something the pandemic took away from them. Do you push the button, or do you cower away because some rich prick might sue you later? I don't think the IA exists without the kind of person who pushes that button.