3 ms·

Do they have to show harm? If the goal is just to shut down the digital lending I'd have thought that was a fairly straightforward consequence of the copyright.

Do they have to show harm? If the goal is just to shut down the digital lending I'd have thought that was a fairly straightforward consequence of the copyright. I would imagine harm is needed to get damages. Are they asking for damages? I'd love to see the publishers take some kind of responsibility for making books available to underserved communities, but as I understand it the law is kind of weak of making people be responsible.

naasking 2y ago
The article makes it sound like digital lending is one at a time, so it falls squarely under how libraries are authorized to work. Thus, it's not at all straightforward that digital lending violates copyright law.
- realusername 2y ago
  If libraries weren't older than the copyright system, they would be banned as well nowadays with the extreme laws in place.
  - ProjectArcturis 2y ago
    The very idea of a library would be mocked as a ridiculous utopian fantasy.
  - _factor 2y ago
    Very accurate. We now have this magic technology that can duplicate books we had no problem lending for free when we were physically constrained. Now that we’ve advanced, we still use archaic constructs to artificially limit information. It’s a sad state.
    - jfengel 2y ago
      We have a magic technology that duplicates books, but we don't yet have one that writes books. At least not ones worth reading. Maybe LLMs will eventually make the profession of writing obsolete. We'd make books too cheap to meter.
    - mistrial9 2y ago
      "One conversation centered on the ever accelerating progress of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue" 1958 Stanislaw Ulam wrote (in reference to a conversation with John von Neumann)
- pie_flavor 2y ago
  'One at a time' is not how 'libraries are authorized to work'. There are specific additional permissions granted to libraries[0]. They have nothing to do with making and distributing arbitrarily many copies of a work, regardless of whether the previous recipient claims to have deleted it before the next person receives it - libraries are permitted to make one copy, or in some cases three - and the suit is primarily about the period where IA enforced no such restriction in the first place. It is very straightforward that making and distributing copies is infringement without specific permission to do so or some specific legal carveout. Characterizing making many copies as sort of the same thing as having one copy which you move around may be how you treat it morally, but it certainly isn't how the law works. [0]: https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#108 https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#108
  - rpdillon 2y ago
    Kind of weird to remove a bunch of books from a library that has controlled digital lending as punishment for a period of time where they removed those controls. If there was damage during the time they removed the controls, then that's worth talking about. But they effectively work like any other library today (they buy a copy, digitize it, and then lend out the digital copy one at a time just like the physical work), so I don't see how removing books really helps anybody. I think the misunderstanding is whether or not IA is making many copies or not. My impression is that they are not.
    - pie_flavor 2y ago
      I do not know how you would end up with that impression, because for each person who downloads a copy, the IA has made a copy. Regarding the removal of books, if they were licensed to the IA in a way that allows for 'digital lending', and the IA then violates that license agreement, then the IA no longer has the license and cannot anymore do 'digital lending'. And if they weren't licensed to the IA in such a way, then they're making and distributing copies without a license to do so, which is copyright infringement.
      - rpdillon 2y ago
tomxor 2y ago
It could also be argued dead tree libraries harm publishers... But that doesn't mean it's a good idea to ban libraries, corporate interests should not beat societal interests when they are not aligned.
- greggyb 2y ago
  Not just "could be", indeed it has been argued. This is a good read, but section II is most relevant here: https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/37374618/The%20Publisher%20Playbook%20Pre-Print%203.14.23.pdf?sequence=1 https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/37374618/The%20P...
petronio 2y ago
IIRC you have to show harm to take anything to court. I recall cases on federal regulation that failed to move forward because a state AG failed to prove harm. It makes sense when you think about it, otherwise courts would be flooded with lawsuits "because I don't like it".
zerocrates 2y ago
Internet Archive is claiming their lending program is fair use, and deciding whether something is fair use involves showing the effect (or lack thereof) of the use on the market for the work. A use that doesn't hurt sales is much more likely to be held as fair use. There are requirements to show harm for other purposes like standing to sue in the first place, but that's not really a relevant issue here. Damages would of course be another, but copyright law has statutory damages that probably easily eclipse any actual harm here, and at any rate the parties already made a (confidential) agreement on damages after Internet Archive lost in the district court.

naasking 2y ago

The article makes it sound like digital lending is one at a time, so it falls squarely under how libraries are authorized to work. Thus, it's not at all straightforward that digital lending violates copyright law.

realusername 2y ago
If libraries weren't older than the copyright system, they would be banned as well nowadays with the extreme laws in place.
- ProjectArcturis 2y ago
  The very idea of a library would be mocked as a ridiculous utopian fantasy.
- _factor 2y ago
  Very accurate. We now have this magic technology that can duplicate books we had no problem lending for free when we were physically constrained. Now that we’ve advanced, we still use archaic constructs to artificially limit information. It’s a sad state.
  - jfengel 2y ago
    We have a magic technology that duplicates books, but we don't yet have one that writes books. At least not ones worth reading. Maybe LLMs will eventually make the profession of writing obsolete. We'd make books too cheap to meter.
  - mistrial9 2y ago
    "One conversation centered on the ever accelerating progress of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue" 1958 Stanislaw Ulam wrote (in reference to a conversation with John von Neumann)
pie_flavor 2y ago
'One at a time' is not how 'libraries are authorized to work'. There are specific additional permissions granted to libraries[0]. They have nothing to do with making and distributing arbitrarily many copies of a work, regardless of whether the previous recipient claims to have deleted it before the next person receives it - libraries are permitted to make one copy, or in some cases three - and the suit is primarily about the period where IA enforced no such restriction in the first place. It is very straightforward that making and distributing copies is infringement without specific permission to do so or some specific legal carveout. Characterizing making many copies as sort of the same thing as having one copy which you move around may be how you treat it morally, but it certainly isn't how the law works. [0]: https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#108 https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#108
- rpdillon 2y ago
  Kind of weird to remove a bunch of books from a library that has controlled digital lending as punishment for a period of time where they removed those controls. If there was damage during the time they removed the controls, then that's worth talking about. But they effectively work like any other library today (they buy a copy, digitize it, and then lend out the digital copy one at a time just like the physical work), so I don't see how removing books really helps anybody. I think the misunderstanding is whether or not IA is making many copies or not. My impression is that they are not.
  - pie_flavor 2y ago
    I do not know how you would end up with that impression, because for each person who downloads a copy, the IA has made a copy. Regarding the removal of books, if they were licensed to the IA in a way that allows for 'digital lending', and the IA then violates that license agreement, then the IA no longer has the license and cannot anymore do 'digital lending'. And if they weren't licensed to the IA in such a way, then they're making and distributing copies without a license to do so, which is copyright infringement.
    - rpdillon 2y ago

tomxor 2y ago

It could also be argued dead tree libraries harm publishers... But that doesn't mean it's a good idea to ban libraries, corporate interests should not beat societal interests when they are not aligned.

greggyb 2y ago
Not just "could be", indeed it has been argued. This is a good read, but section II is most relevant here: https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/37374618/The%20Publisher%20Playbook%20Pre-Print%203.14.23.pdf?sequence=1 https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/37374618/The%20P...

petronio 2y ago

IIRC you have to show harm to take anything to court. I recall cases on federal regulation that failed to move forward because a state AG failed to prove harm. It makes sense when you think about it, otherwise courts would be flooded with lawsuits "because I don't like it".

zerocrates 2y ago

Internet Archive is claiming their lending program is fair use, and deciding whether something is fair use involves showing the effect (or lack thereof) of the use on the market for the work. A use that doesn't hurt sales is much more likely to be held as fair use. There are requirements to show harm for other purposes like standing to sue in the first place, but that's not really a relevant issue here. Damages would of course be another, but copyright law has statutory damages that probably easily eclipse any actual harm here, and at any rate the parties already made a (confidential) agreement on damages after Internet Archive lost in the district court.