8 ms·

You are directing your ire at the wrong party. Hachette has nothing to gain from continuing to pursue this lawsuit, the only possible outcome (as you correctly

You are directing your ire at the wrong party. Hachette has nothing to gain from continuing to pursue this lawsuit, the only possible outcome (as you correctly state) is the world becomes a worse place. The behavior they object to has already stopped, and they've got a judgment to prevent it happening again. Hachette could drop enforcement of the judgment, both parties can dismiss the appeal, and no one loses anything. Hachette's owners see an opportunity here to destroy a public good, and they are taking it. Hachette are the bad actors trying to destroy what you find valuable, not the IA.

justinclift 3y ago
> Hachette has nothing to gain from continuing to pursue this lawsuit ... They're probably just making sure that the next place that wants to pull something funny, doesn't. Ye old "lets make an example out of them" thing.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
Dalewyn 3y ago
>Hachette has nothing to gain from continuing to pursue this lawsuit They do: Legal precedent. IA made themselves into an easy, prominent target by doing something everyone else agreed to not do via Gentlemens' Agreements(tm) and precedents set by lesser transgressions, so now they're reaping what they sowed. The book publishers stand to gain legal precedent that doing what IA did can and will result in legal consequences severe enough to ruin you.
sangnoir 3y ago
> You are directing your ire at the wrong party. Hachette has nothing to gain from continuing to pursue this lawsuit, the only possible outcome (as you correctly state) is the world becomes a worse place. Hachette obviously benefits from teaching would-be unlimited "lenders" a lesson. Even anti-DRM, "buy my books only if you can afford" authors were against this hare-brained lending scheme because the IA didn't even bother to buy a single copy of the books they were "lending". The blame squarely falls at the IA's feet; being an idealist doesn't give you the rights to delve into illegal behavior, regardless of the righteousness of your cause or the depth of your conviction. If the world is better with an org in it, and it jeopardizes it's own ability to remain a going concern, it's clear to me who is culpable. "Too good to die" doesn't exist.
- cess11 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - WoodenChair 3y ago
    > You don't consider it to be a right to revolt against tyranny? Do you think not being able to download all the free stuff you want is tyranny? "Tyranny" is defined as a "cruel and oppressive government or rule." How are you being oppressed and/or treated cruelly? You can think copyright terms are too long without the hyperbole.
    - pixl97 3y ago
      I mean 'The Right to Read' sets up a story environment where Copyright/IP is a form of tyranny. I view any form of overly broad copyright as a form of government enforced tyranny itself. This can be anywhere from terms that last lifetimes. The lack of counter enforcement against actors bring false claims. And allowing very generic/simple systems to be copyrighted thereby enacting massive rent seeking behavior across most of the population.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        This is not a case of misuse of copyright. Books are copyrighted so authors can exist.
        vundercind 3y ago
        Authors have no trouble existing without copyright at all, let alone some weaker version of copyright. Meanwhile, vanishingly few authors make a living at it, and not a lot more make beer money. It’s a pursuit that barely pays as it is, yet many books are written.
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        It will pay less without copyright.
vidarh 3y ago
It's perfectly possible to think Hachette is being cruel and doing harm and also think IA has acted stupidly and/or recklessly.
- coldpie 3y ago
  Yeah, this is largely my position, with an added dose of understanding (2020 was a weird year; many mistakes were made by many people). But Hachette & Co. are the ones acting with intent to harm now so I think they deserve the ire now.
gojomo 3y ago
Everything you allege here is misinformed as to the current state of the lawsuit and stakes. You demonize Hachette et al (4 major publishers) as seeking to destroy a public good. In fact, they've already settled with the IA, as of last August 2023, in a manner that caps costs to IA at a survivable level and sets clear mutually-acceptable rules for future activity. You imply IA would dismiss the appeal if the plaintiffs "could drop enforcement of the judgement". In fact, there were never any assessed damages, the parties have already reached a mutually-acceptable settlement per above, and despite that – in fact, as part of the settlement! – the IA has retained the right to appeal regarding the fair-use principles that are important to them. Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hachette_v._Internet_Archive#Final_judgment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hachette_v._Internet_Archive#F... >On August 11, 2023, the parties reached a negotiated judgment. The agreement prescribes a permanent injunction against the Internet Archive preventing it from distributing the plaintiffs' books, except those for which no e-book is currently available,[3] as well as an undisclosed payment to the plaintiffs.[25][26] The agreement also preserves the right for the Internet Archive to appeal the previous ruling.[25][26] IA's August 2023 statement on how much will continue despite the injunction & settlement limits: https://blog.archive.org/2023/08/17/what-the-hachette-v-internet-archive-decision-means-for-our-library/ https://blog.archive.org/2023/08/17/what-the-hachette-v-inte... >Because this case was limited to our book lending program, the injunction does not significantly impact our other library services. The Internet Archive may still digitize books for preservation purposes, and may still provide access to our digital collections in a number of ways, including through interlibrary loan and by making accessible formats available to people with qualified print disabilities. We may continue to display “short portions” of books as is consistent with fair use—for example, Wikipedia references (as shown in the image above). The injunction does not affect lending of out-of-print books. And of course, the Internet Archive will still make millions of public domain texts available to the public without restriction.
- gwern 2y ago
  > in a manner that caps costs to IA at a survivable level How do you know that? The last I saw, the penalty was still undisclosed.
- coldpie 3y ago
squarefoot 3y ago
> Hachette's owners see an opportunity here to destroy a public good ... Quite possibly on behalf of some other entities in their same bed that don't like information to be free and preserved.
causality0 3y ago
We reasoned. We begged. We screamed at IA not to do what they did, that this would be the inevitable outcome. This is like someone left a bear trap on my front lawn and because I should have the right to do whatever I want on my property I refuse to listen to the crowd of people telling me not to stick my dick in the bear trap. The controlled digital lending was already completely illegal but the IA was making headway on making it a culturally accepted practice. Then they burned it to the ground. The loss of the IA would be one of if not the greatest Internet-tragedy in history, but the fools in charge of it don't deserve anyone's sympathy.

justinclift 3y ago

> Hachette has nothing to gain from continuing to pursue this lawsuit ... They're probably just making sure that the next place that wants to pull something funny, doesn't. Ye old "lets make an example out of them" thing.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Dalewyn 3y ago

>Hachette has nothing to gain from continuing to pursue this lawsuit They do: Legal precedent. IA made themselves into an easy, prominent target by doing something everyone else agreed to not do via Gentlemens' Agreements(tm) and precedents set by lesser transgressions, so now they're reaping what they sowed. The book publishers stand to gain legal precedent that doing what IA did can and will result in legal consequences severe enough to ruin you.

sangnoir 3y ago

> You are directing your ire at the wrong party. Hachette has nothing to gain from continuing to pursue this lawsuit, the only possible outcome (as you correctly state) is the world becomes a worse place. Hachette obviously benefits from teaching would-be unlimited "lenders" a lesson. Even anti-DRM, "buy my books only if you can afford" authors were against this hare-brained lending scheme because the IA didn't even bother to buy a single copy of the books they were "lending". The blame squarely falls at the IA's feet; being an idealist doesn't give you the rights to delve into illegal behavior, regardless of the righteousness of your cause or the depth of your conviction. If the world is better with an org in it, and it jeopardizes it's own ability to remain a going concern, it's clear to me who is culpable. "Too good to die" doesn't exist.

cess11 3y ago
[flagged]
- WoodenChair 3y ago
  > You don't consider it to be a right to revolt against tyranny? Do you think not being able to download all the free stuff you want is tyranny? "Tyranny" is defined as a "cruel and oppressive government or rule." How are you being oppressed and/or treated cruelly? You can think copyright terms are too long without the hyperbole.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    I mean 'The Right to Read' sets up a story environment where Copyright/IP is a form of tyranny. I view any form of overly broad copyright as a form of government enforced tyranny itself. This can be anywhere from terms that last lifetimes. The lack of counter enforcement against actors bring false claims. And allowing very generic/simple systems to be copyrighted thereby enacting massive rent seeking behavior across most of the population.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      This is not a case of misuse of copyright. Books are copyrighted so authors can exist.
      - vundercind 3y ago
        Authors have no trouble existing without copyright at all, let alone some weaker version of copyright. Meanwhile, vanishingly few authors make a living at it, and not a lot more make beer money. It’s a pursuit that barely pays as it is, yet many books are written.
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        It will pay less without copyright.

vidarh 3y ago

It's perfectly possible to think Hachette is being cruel and doing harm and also think IA has acted stupidly and/or recklessly.

coldpie 3y ago
Yeah, this is largely my position, with an added dose of understanding (2020 was a weird year; many mistakes were made by many people). But Hachette & Co. are the ones acting with intent to harm now so I think they deserve the ire now.

gojomo 3y ago

Everything you allege here is misinformed as to the current state of the lawsuit and stakes. You demonize Hachette et al (4 major publishers) as seeking to destroy a public good. In fact, they've already settled with the IA, as of last August 2023, in a manner that caps costs to IA at a survivable level and sets clear mutually-acceptable rules for future activity. You imply IA would dismiss the appeal if the plaintiffs "could drop enforcement of the judgement". In fact, there were never any assessed damages, the parties have already reached a mutually-acceptable settlement per above, and despite that – in fact, as part of the settlement! – the IA has retained the right to appeal regarding the fair-use principles that are important to them. Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hachette_v._Internet_Archive#Final_judgment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hachette_v._Internet_Archive#F... >On August 11, 2023, the parties reached a negotiated judgment. The agreement prescribes a permanent injunction against the Internet Archive preventing it from distributing the plaintiffs' books, except those for which no e-book is currently available,[3] as well as an undisclosed payment to the plaintiffs.[25][26] The agreement also preserves the right for the Internet Archive to appeal the previous ruling.[25][26] IA's August 2023 statement on how much will continue despite the injunction & settlement limits: https://blog.archive.org/2023/08/17/what-the-hachette-v-internet-archive-decision-means-for-our-library/ https://blog.archive.org/2023/08/17/what-the-hachette-v-inte... >Because this case was limited to our book lending program, the injunction does not significantly impact our other library services. The Internet Archive may still digitize books for preservation purposes, and may still provide access to our digital collections in a number of ways, including through interlibrary loan and by making accessible formats available to people with qualified print disabilities. We may continue to display “short portions” of books as is consistent with fair use—for example, Wikipedia references (as shown in the image above). The injunction does not affect lending of out-of-print books. And of course, the Internet Archive will still make millions of public domain texts available to the public without restriction.

gwern 2y ago
> in a manner that caps costs to IA at a survivable level How do you know that? The last I saw, the penalty was still undisclosed.
coldpie 3y ago

squarefoot 3y ago

> Hachette's owners see an opportunity here to destroy a public good ... Quite possibly on behalf of some other entities in their same bed that don't like information to be free and preserved.

causality0 3y ago

We reasoned. We begged. We screamed at IA not to do what they did, that this would be the inevitable outcome. This is like someone left a bear trap on my front lawn and because I should have the right to do whatever I want on my property I refuse to listen to the crowd of people telling me not to stick my dick in the bear trap. The controlled digital lending was already completely illegal but the IA was making headway on making it a culturally accepted practice. Then they burned it to the ground. The loss of the IA would be one of if not the greatest Internet-tragedy in history, but the fools in charge of it don't deserve anyone's sympathy.