4 ms·

For those who don't know, the case against archive.org is pretty rock solid and justifiable. They had been operating a lending library of ebooks, where you coul

For those who don't know, the case against archive.org is pretty rock solid and justifiable. They had been operating a lending library of ebooks, where you could 'check out' an ebook file and they wouldn't let anyone else read it until you had 'put it back'. They had many options for evading DRM and told you to delete the file when you 'put it back' on the honor system, so this was already legally shaky, but during the pandemic they disabled the limits and let anyone 'check out' anything they wanted without waiting for a copy to become available - AKA hosting a pirate site for downloading unauthorized ebook copies, just with 'library' branding. That is what they got sued for.

sayhar 2y ago
A lot of this is flatly untrue.
- pie_flavor 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - crtasm 2y ago
    Then you can give us some proof/citation on "They had many options for evading DRM" please? Every time I've borrowed a book on there, it's used Adobe DRM just like when I buy an ebook.
    - pie_flavor 2y ago
      The options to download the book as a PDF or epub.
      - crtasm 2y ago
        Those options don't exist for books in their lending programme though. Example: https://archive.org/details/introducingpytho0000luba https://archive.org/details/introducingpytho0000luba
        pie_flavor 2y ago
        I have seen it many times. Perhaps they removed it since the lawsuit.
        crtasm 2y ago
        I have too: on books that are not part of their controlled lending programme.
- DiggyJohnson 2y ago
  Like what?
wizzwizz4 2y ago
> They had many options for evading DRM As does Adobe, Amazon… There's no need for me to go through the list alphabetically. There's fundamentally no such thing as a technological protection measure, not in a world where the compact digital camera exists.
- pie_flavor 2y ago
  The ease with which a padlock is broken by bolt cutters is not a legal defense against doing so.
  - crtasm 2y ago
    What do you even mean here? IA didn't break DRM, and they use industry standard DRM.
  - skulk 2y ago
    Equating physical property (subject to scarcity) and digital property is what ends up destroying the foundation of freedom in computing. Can we not perpetuate this way of thinking and instead find better ways to support creators?
nimih 2y ago
> They had been operating a lending library of ebooks, where you could 'check out' an ebook file and they wouldn't let anyone else read it until you had 'put it back'. They had many options for evading DRM and told you to delete the file when you 'put it back' on the honor system This is basically how checking out ebooks from my "regular" library works. Not only is the DRM relatively easy to remove (even for non-technical users), returning the books is also on the honor system (to wit: on a Kindle, you retain access to books indefinitely so long as you're in airplane mode; on a Kobo, so long as you keep the book open and avoid returning to the home screen; these tricks are both easily discovered and, IME, routinely shared among people with ereaders). It's possible IA should've avoided poking the bear by removing these nominal restrictions during the pandemic, but framing their normal operation as substantially different from that of more traditional libraries is rather disingenuous.
- pie_flavor 2y ago
  1. There's a difference between a weak DRM format, and a "download as PDF" option. 2. "Poking the bear by removing these nominal restrictions" is the "branding" I was talking about. Their "emergency library" was a pirate site, plain and simple. You can describe it as a procedural difference from what they were doing before, but that doesn't stop it from being piracy.
  - mdp2021 2y ago
    > was Vacuous labels. A library provides access to texts; the idea of lending single texts serially just comes from the physical restrictions of physical books, which loses meaning with the electronic format. A library lends books. There is little difference if the queue is respected when such queue is artificial.
    - account42 2y ago
      Right and if the IA was following that logic it should have never bothered with any DRM in the first place.
    - pie_flavor 2y ago
boomboomsubban 2y ago
>That is what they got sued for. It is not. The judge ruled the CDL, their original system, was illegal, and the only mention of the period where they removed the limits was saying basically "as controlled digital lending was already illegal, the pandemic actions were also illegal."
- TMWNN 2y ago
  This is cope and ex post facto butt-covering. pie_flavor's point is that OpenLibrary's "emergency library" made IA legally vulnerable. Whether CDL being affected is a side effect or not of the lawsuit is beside the point.
  - boomboomsubban 2y ago
    This is nonsense. Publishers had been building up to attack CDL for years, and your argument that "as you committed this illegal act, this other legal act is now a crime for everybody" makes absolutely zero sense. The emergency library made them legally vulnerable over that act, this lawsuit is not about that act.
  - jordanb 2y ago
    > OpenLibrary's "emergency library" made IA legally vulnerable According to the plaintiffs and the judge who agreed with them, controlled digital lending was always illegal and they always had grounds to sue. So it did not make them "legally vulnerable." I could see it argued that it made them "rhetorically vulnerable" and that's why the publishers took this particular moment to sue, but your statement is in contradiction with the plaintiffs and judge.
jandrese 2y ago
IMHO the Internet Archive was always going to get sued because they were treating ebooks like physical books and that's contrary to the copyright maximalism that is law around ebooks. The COVID change didn't really make a difference, they publishers were never going to allow some random people on the internet undo all of the work they put into adding restrictions on digital media. They're never ever going to allow something like the doctrine of first sale to happen again. That's why you can't have an regular library with ebooks. The publishers will not settle for anything less than charging libraries per-read and requiring negotiation for every title offered. The old library model doesn't maximize shareholder value for the publisher. Also to blame is our elected representatives who could legislate a better system for the people, but are too beholden to corporate interests to ever do so.
- TMWNN 2y ago
  >IMHO the Internet Archive was always going to get sued because they were treating ebooks like physical books and that's contrary to the copyright maximalism that is law around ebooks. No, IA was not sued before the "emergency library" because OpenLibrary treated physical books like physical books. OpenLibrary had been around for years before 2020.[0] >They're never ever going to allow something like the doctrine of first sale to happen again. Ah yes, the oft-touted warning that "they" (meaning publishers) hate the first sale doctrine and somehow will magically abolish it.[1] The principle that one you own something tangible, you can do whatever you want with it (sell it, lend it, gift it, destroy it) is a longstanding one, with books being only one application. Lending libraries predate the concept of a free public library and, yet, publishers somehow did not go around to every paid library and mechanics' institute demanding a cut of membership fees. >That's why you can't have an regular library with ebooks. I said "tangible" above for a reason. I don't have a good answer for how and whether to treat ebooks differently, but am not convinced that the only right and proper one is to treat them exactly the same way as physical books. >The publishers will not settle for anything less than charging libraries per-read and requiring negotiation for every title offered. But this has not been the case in practice. Amazon and other retailers sell ebooks with permanent licenses.[2] Libraries use both CloudLibrary's per-borrow model and Overdrive as providers; while I prefer the latter as a Kindle e-paper reader, there is an argument to be made for either approach from a logistical perspective. In my experience Overdrive has the largest market share, so libraries seem to prefer its approach.[3] [0] I'm quite certain that my IA/OL account is older than yours. [1] As amazing as it may seem, publishing companies' employees also grew up borrowing books at the library. [2] Yes, I know about the 1984 example [3] And before you say "Overdrive books shouldn't expire after 52 borrows!", that seems like a reasonable compromise given that ebooks don't fall apart after repeated use the way pretty much any physical book would after that many borrows. Again, paid-for ebooks from Amazon and elsewhere don't expire.

sayhar 2y ago

A lot of this is flatly untrue.

pie_flavor 2y ago
[flagged]
- crtasm 2y ago
  Then you can give us some proof/citation on "They had many options for evading DRM" please? Every time I've borrowed a book on there, it's used Adobe DRM just like when I buy an ebook.
  - pie_flavor 2y ago
    The options to download the book as a PDF or epub.
    - crtasm 2y ago
      Those options don't exist for books in their lending programme though. Example: https://archive.org/details/introducingpytho0000luba https://archive.org/details/introducingpytho0000luba
      - pie_flavor 2y ago
        I have seen it many times. Perhaps they removed it since the lawsuit.
        crtasm 2y ago
        I have too: on books that are not part of their controlled lending programme.
DiggyJohnson 2y ago
Like what?

wizzwizz4 2y ago

> They had many options for evading DRM As does Adobe, Amazon… There's no need for me to go through the list alphabetically. There's fundamentally no such thing as a technological protection measure, not in a world where the compact digital camera exists.

pie_flavor 2y ago
The ease with which a padlock is broken by bolt cutters is not a legal defense against doing so.
- crtasm 2y ago
  What do you even mean here? IA didn't break DRM, and they use industry standard DRM.
- skulk 2y ago
  Equating physical property (subject to scarcity) and digital property is what ends up destroying the foundation of freedom in computing. Can we not perpetuate this way of thinking and instead find better ways to support creators?

nimih 2y ago

> They had been operating a lending library of ebooks, where you could 'check out' an ebook file and they wouldn't let anyone else read it until you had 'put it back'. They had many options for evading DRM and told you to delete the file when you 'put it back' on the honor system This is basically how checking out ebooks from my "regular" library works. Not only is the DRM relatively easy to remove (even for non-technical users), returning the books is also on the honor system (to wit: on a Kindle, you retain access to books indefinitely so long as you're in airplane mode; on a Kobo, so long as you keep the book open and avoid returning to the home screen; these tricks are both easily discovered and, IME, routinely shared among people with ereaders). It's possible IA should've avoided poking the bear by removing these nominal restrictions during the pandemic, but framing their normal operation as substantially different from that of more traditional libraries is rather disingenuous.

pie_flavor 2y ago
1. There's a difference between a weak DRM format, and a "download as PDF" option. 2. "Poking the bear by removing these nominal restrictions" is the "branding" I was talking about. Their "emergency library" was a pirate site, plain and simple. You can describe it as a procedural difference from what they were doing before, but that doesn't stop it from being piracy.
- mdp2021 2y ago
  > was Vacuous labels. A library provides access to texts; the idea of lending single texts serially just comes from the physical restrictions of physical books, which loses meaning with the electronic format. A library lends books. There is little difference if the queue is respected when such queue is artificial.
  - account42 2y ago
    Right and if the IA was following that logic it should have never bothered with any DRM in the first place.
  - pie_flavor 2y ago

boomboomsubban 2y ago

>That is what they got sued for. It is not. The judge ruled the CDL, their original system, was illegal, and the only mention of the period where they removed the limits was saying basically "as controlled digital lending was already illegal, the pandemic actions were also illegal."

TMWNN 2y ago
This is cope and ex post facto butt-covering. pie_flavor's point is that OpenLibrary's "emergency library" made IA legally vulnerable. Whether CDL being affected is a side effect or not of the lawsuit is beside the point.
- boomboomsubban 2y ago
  This is nonsense. Publishers had been building up to attack CDL for years, and your argument that "as you committed this illegal act, this other legal act is now a crime for everybody" makes absolutely zero sense. The emergency library made them legally vulnerable over that act, this lawsuit is not about that act.
- jordanb 2y ago
  > OpenLibrary's "emergency library" made IA legally vulnerable According to the plaintiffs and the judge who agreed with them, controlled digital lending was always illegal and they always had grounds to sue. So it did not make them "legally vulnerable." I could see it argued that it made them "rhetorically vulnerable" and that's why the publishers took this particular moment to sue, but your statement is in contradiction with the plaintiffs and judge.

jandrese 2y ago

IMHO the Internet Archive was always going to get sued because they were treating ebooks like physical books and that's contrary to the copyright maximalism that is law around ebooks. The COVID change didn't really make a difference, they publishers were never going to allow some random people on the internet undo all of the work they put into adding restrictions on digital media. They're never ever going to allow something like the doctrine of first sale to happen again. That's why you can't have an regular library with ebooks. The publishers will not settle for anything less than charging libraries per-read and requiring negotiation for every title offered. The old library model doesn't maximize shareholder value for the publisher. Also to blame is our elected representatives who could legislate a better system for the people, but are too beholden to corporate interests to ever do so.

TMWNN 2y ago
>IMHO the Internet Archive was always going to get sued because they were treating ebooks like physical books and that's contrary to the copyright maximalism that is law around ebooks. No, IA was not sued before the "emergency library" because OpenLibrary treated physical books like physical books. OpenLibrary had been around for years before 2020.[0] >They're never ever going to allow something like the doctrine of first sale to happen again. Ah yes, the oft-touted warning that "they" (meaning publishers) hate the first sale doctrine and somehow will magically abolish it.[1] The principle that one you own something tangible, you can do whatever you want with it (sell it, lend it, gift it, destroy it) is a longstanding one, with books being only one application. Lending libraries predate the concept of a free public library and, yet, publishers somehow did not go around to every paid library and mechanics' institute demanding a cut of membership fees. >That's why you can't have an regular library with ebooks. I said "tangible" above for a reason. I don't have a good answer for how and whether to treat ebooks differently, but am not convinced that the only right and proper one is to treat them exactly the same way as physical books. >The publishers will not settle for anything less than charging libraries per-read and requiring negotiation for every title offered. But this has not been the case in practice. Amazon and other retailers sell ebooks with permanent licenses.[2] Libraries use both CloudLibrary's per-borrow model and Overdrive as providers; while I prefer the latter as a Kindle e-paper reader, there is an argument to be made for either approach from a logistical perspective. In my experience Overdrive has the largest market share, so libraries seem to prefer its approach.[3] [0] I'm quite certain that my IA/OL account is older than yours. [1] As amazing as it may seem, publishing companies' employees also grew up borrowing books at the library. [2] Yes, I know about the 1984 example [3] And before you say "Overdrive books shouldn't expire after 52 borrows!", that seems like a reasonable compromise given that ebooks don't fall apart after repeated use the way pretty much any physical book would after that many borrows. Again, paid-for ebooks from Amazon and elsewhere don't expire.