37 ms·

The Internet Archive has lost its appeal in Hachette vs. Internet Archive

• raytopia 2y ago
  Crazy that this is not fair use but ai is.
  • TeeMassive 2y ago
    The argument can be more easily made that AI is transformative compared to copying the content of eBooks.
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  • pcaharrier 2y ago
    Dare I say "Follow the money"?
  • mrweasel 2y ago
    Just make an LLM spit out a Metallic song, that will fix that.
    • wileydragonfly 2y ago
      Metallica. Not even once since Napster. NOT EVEN ONCE.
  • bunderbunder 2y ago
    Something like this would never have fallen under fair use in the first place, I don't think. It doesn't really mesh very well with any of the factors US law lists as considerations when deciding whether or not use is fair. If this falls under anything it falls under the first sale doctrine. I generally side with publishers and artists on the generative AI debate, but I'll at least concede that they have some grounds for a fair use argument based on the transformative (legal jargon meaning, not buzzword meaning) nature of the work they're doing. (IANAL, just guesing, etc etc.)
    • codedokode 2y ago
      Did AI companies buy copyrighted works though?
      • bunderbunder 2y ago
        If they had then fair use questions would have been a moot point.
  • bowsamic 2y ago
    Is AI fair use? I'm no legal expert, but my impression was that the legal precedent simply had not been set yet, but that when it is set it is likely against AI
  • thebrid 2y ago
    As much as I love the Internet Archive, is it really that crazy? The four factors used for determining fair use are: * the purpose and character of the use * the nature of the copyrighted work; * the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole * the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. In the Internet Archive case, they're distributing whole, unmodified copies of copyrighted works which will of course compete with those original works. In the AI use case, they're typically aiming not to output any significant part of the training data. So they could well argue that the use is transformative, reproducing only minimal parts of the original work and not competing in the market with the original work.
    • hiatus 2y ago
      > In the Internet Archive case, they're distributing whole, unmodified copies of copyrighted works which will of course compete with those original works. Libraries would be illegal if conceived of today. If this weren't digital it would be a violation of first sale doctrine.
      • beardyw 2y ago
        > Libraries would be illegal if conceived of today. Just shows how far forward we have progressed. Maybe book burnings next to prevent resale?
      • tptacek 2y ago
        How? Libraries lend out actual physical objects. They're not xeroxing the books and handing them out.
        • tcgv 2y ago
          Exactly. And if a book is in high demand in a library, you'd either have to wait your turn or purchase one yourself to avoid the lending queue.
          • 2y ago
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • tptacek 2y ago
    IA's arguments that this was fair use seem exceptionally weak: * Their "transformation" argument comes down to easing access, which has already been shot down in previous cases; unsurprising, since Napster could make the same argument. * Their "nature of the work" argument came down to the fact that some of the books they scanned were nonfiction. * They made a halfhearted attempt to claim that "amount and substantiality" weighed neutrally in this case, despite copying entire books wholesale and making them available in their entirety. * They brought experts to make their "commercial impact" argument who limited their analysis to physical books(?!) despite the publishers coming to the case with competing ebooks. It's wild to me they thought they could win this case. There's the law as people at IA and on message boards want it to be, and there's the law as it is. For people who want those two concepts to come closer together, this case seems like a major setback and an egregious strategic blunder.
    • codedokode 2y ago
      If you buy a physical book, you have a right to lend it for free or re-sell it (first-sale doctrine). The publishers want to establish a precedent that you cannot do the same thing with digital books: the library must buy a special license and pay for every reading. So this is about stripping people from their rights regarding to books made with a new technology.
      • tptacek 2y ago
        It's not the same thing. When you give a book to someone else, you lose a physical object and they gain one. To "give" an ebook to someone, you have to copy it. We have a whole body of law about when it's OK to copy things.
        • codedokode 2y ago
          IA allowed to read books throught the website so no copies are made. When lending a book through file download they used DRM to prevent reading after the lending term ends.
  • Minor49er 2y ago
    Creating something transformative is worse than straight up copying it? How does this make any sense?
  • woadwarrior01 2y ago
    Indeed! Although in the AI training case it's much more surreptitious. Everyone trains on them, the only story that I'm aware of is the one about the OpenAI books1 and books2 datasets used to train GPT3.
  • suprjami 2y ago
    Lending books to students doesn't make Red Line go up.
  • AcerbicZero 2y ago
    I wonder how legit it would be to have an AI scan over the copy, re-write it (as minimally as possible) in its own words, and then just distribute that. Probably not all that legit, but arguably thats where we're headed anyway :/
    • jadbox 2y ago
      The challenge (afaik) is that "as minimally as possible" is very much a gray line, and that line can be make weaker depending on the volume of material.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• ranger_danger 2y ago
  >Four major book publishers again thwarted the online repository’s defense that its one-to-one lending practices mirrored those of traditional libraries How does it not? I don't get it... why are physical libraries in the clear if it's still a 1:1 borrow?
  • phendrenad2 2y ago
    Seems like most of this hinges of precedent. The courts have upheld that if you buy a book and loan out an audio recording of that book, it's not protected. Or something like that.
  • ianburrell 2y ago
    Traditional libraries lend out the physical copies they bought. For ebooks, they have an agreement with publisher to lend out a certain number of copies. Owners are allowed to make digital copies for personal and archival use. They aren't allowed to transfer copies. The rights of digital ebook are in the license and most prohibit transfers. The rights of physical book are attached to the book. Nobody notices or cares when done on personal scale. But publishers care when Internet Archive did it on large scale.
    • majorchord 2y ago
      As far as I know, IA owns the physical books they scanned, so why shouldn't they be allowed to lend them out 1-to-1 digitally the same as a physical library?
      • uxp100 2y ago
        I thought the person you were responding too was saying that isn’t what physical libraries do. Also, as far as I know that isn’t what physical libraries do. They buy licenses to share e-books. And don’t physically scan anything.
        • majorchord 2y ago
          I meant that digitally lending the books out that IA owns 1-to-1 in the same way a real library lends out physical books should legally be treated the same, regardless of any ebook-specific licensing.
• Devasta 2y ago
  Awful news. Seems like this is the publishers planned approach going forward, nonstop lawsuits to henpeck the IA to death.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • leotravis10 2y ago
    Yep. Not just publishers, almost every copyright holder. From five months ago, still relevant: https://old.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/1bswhdj/if_there_is_a_book_on_internet_archive_your/ https://old.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/1bswhdj/if_the... Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39908676 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39908676
  • hexage1814 2y ago
    Why not going the sci hub route?
    • Kenji 2y ago
      It would be nice to have an archive with the blessing of our overlords, but I guess true preservation of data can only happen in illegality.
  • tptacek 2y ago
    I don't think this took much henpecking. IA basically didn't have a case, took it to federal court, appealed it, and won themselves the following 2nd Circuit precedent: "[I]s it “fair use” for a nonprofit organization to scan copyright-protected print books in their entirety and distribute those digital copies online, in full, for free, subject to a one-to-one owned-to-loaned ratio between its print copies and the digital copies it makes available at any given time, all without authorization from the copyright-holding publishers or authors? Applying the relevant provisions of the Copyright Act as well as binding Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent, we conclude the answer is no" This may be a broad setback to all controlled digital lending. As the saying goes, "play stupid games...".
• warmcompress 2y ago
  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca2.60988/gov.uscourts.ca2.60988.306.1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca2.609... On one hand: the court opinion. On the other, a breaking news tweet from Publisher's Weekly with hundreds of tedious low effort takes ready to melt precious brain cells. Please read the opinion.
  • realityfactchex 2y ago
    Reading and understanding the opinion is the way for this one, for a simple reason as I understand it. The judges get to basically make up an opinion about the matter, which could be anything. And they can support basically any opinion using whatever they want, and it can be made to sound ok. The whole point is that the judges are forming a judgement. It's, like, their opinion on the matter. The judges don't have to find out mathematically what the law says. They're making (case) law, by making an opinion, based on how they feel about it all, trying to be well-informed on the matter and its background, but really just putting down their feeling on it. Here's the most essential thing they wrote IMO: From Page 2: """Is it “fair use” for a nonprofit organization to scan copyright-protected print books in their entirety, and distribute those digital copies online, in full, for free, subject to a one-to-one owned-to-loaned ratio between its print copies and the digital copies it makes available at any given time, all without authorization from the copyright-holding publishers or authors? Applying the relevant provisions of the Copyright Act as well as binding Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent, we conclude the answer is no.""" They justify it in a series of points. We can disagree with the points all we want, like whether or not it is transformative, or commercial, or all the other things. But at the end of the day, these judges said, nah, we're going to say that we don't think this is fair. I mean, I can see their point. But this would have been a chance for them to see the point in what the IA was doing and to say, "oh, you know what, that is actually fair in our view". Only, they didn't, it looks like. I guess the next step is to see if the Supreme Court is interested in weighing in on the topic.
    • ranger_danger 2y ago
      I still don't see the difference with one-to-one lending vs physical libraries as long as the archive owns the books.
• Atreiden 2y ago
  > This appeal presents the following question: Is it “fair use” for a nonprofit organization to scan copyright-protected print books in their entirety, and distribute those digital copies online, in full, for free, subject to a one-to-one owned-to-loaned ratio between its print copies and the digital copies it makes available at any given time, all without authorization from the copyright-holding publishers or authors? Applying the relevant provisions of the Copyright Act as well as binding Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent, we conclude the answer is no. When the conclusion is so obviously incorrect, we should examine the underlying precedent that leads us to such an erroneous conclusion. This precedent should give us pause. They're restricting a NONPROFITs to distribute legally purchased print media in a way that the publishers don't want. And this seems to be the justification: > In addition to selling traditional print books, Publishers collectively invest millions of dollars in developing new formats and markets suited for the digital age, including the eBook market. > Here, by contrast, IA’s Free Digital Library offers few efficiencies beyond those already offered by Publishers’ own eBooks. IA argues that its use is more efficient because it “replace[s] the burdens of physical transportation with the benefits of digital technology,” but this ignores the fact that IA’s digital books compete directly with Publishers’ eBooks―works derivative of the original print books. This is an assault on free-use, libraries, and collective sharing of knowledge. If I buy a physical book, I can give it to anyone I want because the laws of yore did not see societal benefit to prohibiting this. I'm quite certain that these companies would prohibit the practice, if they could. The law is the only thing protecting the commons. The argument here is essentially, "these companies are spending millions to distribute their IP digitally, so we should shield them from Open standards that would negatively impact their profits". "Your work isn't transformative, because we've already done a similar transformation". They're wielding a proprietary implementation as a hammer to crush open knowledge. The internet should be a tool to facilitate knowledge-sharing for the betterment of our entire species, not a weapon to stifle knowledge for the sake of corporate profits.
  • altruios 2y ago
    We should do a Rome thing, rework the legal code at this point, now that we have the internet. Copyright needs to be abolished or radically altered.
  • 2y ago
• pcaharrier 2y ago
  "Is it 'fair use' for a nonprofit organization to scan copyright-protected print books in their entirety, and distribute those digital copies online, in full, for free, subject to a one-to-one owned-to-loaned ratio between its print copies and the digital copies it makes available at any given time, all without authorization from the copyright-holding publishers or authors? Applying the relevant provisions of the Copyright Act as well as binding Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent, we conclude the answer is no."
• atlasunshrugged 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • Ensorceled 2y ago
    Why are you routing this link through google?
• Yawrehto 2y ago
  I hope this doesn't bankrupt the Internet Archive (either the legal fees or the case - I don't recall what they're asking for). It would be bad if the Wayback Machine, the biggest internet archivist around, went under, and also all the books, software, et cetera that the Archive hosts. I wonder if there's any way to archive all of the Wayback Machine (82.3 petabytes), or, better yet, all of the Internet Archive (which is, by my count, around 120 petabytes?) Who would have the capability/interest in doing so, ideally without charge?
  • pcaharrier 2y ago
    Shutting down IA altogether seems unlikely at this point (even if legal fees are substantial). They've written before about what the decision means (this appellate court affirmed what the district court did last year) and it doesn't touch things like the Wayback Machine: 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...
    • leotravis10 2y ago
      Keep a close eye on the inevitable lawsuits that they're going to be up against. Obviously the music publishers are currently trying to kill the Great 78 Project and I expect other industries to pounce. (Especially the gaming and media industries). I can't see the Internet Archive exist in 2-5 years and we need to prepare for the worst case scenario. https://old.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/1bswhdj/if_there_is_a_book_on_internet_archive_your/ https://old.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/1bswhdj/if_the... Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39908676 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39908676 Projects such as Anna's Archive are going to be much more critical than ever.
      • mezzie2 2y ago
        > Projects such as Anna's Archive are going to be much more critical than ever. I look forward to all the new AA mirrors + contributions that are going to come from disgruntled archivists. And everybody in the libraries/archives space going on downloading sprees. Most of us have personal illegal libraries. We just don't share them.
• airhangerf15 2y ago
  Honestly the dumbest possible move by Internet Archive. IA has gotten more and more ideological as well, and it's been censoring content it doesn't like. I'm not sure if they're in the Wikipedia/Mozilla boat of screwed up political spending, but if they are, this decision should at least temper that down. I'm sure they'll be able to raise the money needed to pay off this lawsuit. It's true the Archive has a lot of amazing things not found elsewhere. Still, I've been hesitant to give them any money for years. The replies in that thread are dumb too. I don't think people understand the legal complexities here, what a huge advantage it was for IA to even be able to lend out digital books in the way it was doing, and how dumb it was for them to think they could create new legal/copyright theory in the wake of the mass-hysteria of 2020. It does show the two tiered system. Amazon, big tech and others massively got away with absorbing huge amounts of money in 2020. This non-profit tried to do equally shady things and it bit them in the ass. You clearly see where the system is tilted towards.
  • pcaharrier 2y ago
    I think there actually does need to be some re-evaluation of some of the copyright/fair use issues raised by this case, but the NEL thing they did in 2020 was a totally unnecessary risk.
  • room4 2y ago
    > how dumb it was for them to think they could create new legal/copyright theory in the wake of the mass-hysteria of 2020. I haven't followed the details of this case, but as a general notion, that sounds kinda reasonable to me? Copyright law and enforcement is terribly broken in the USA, with a handful of giant publishers wielding massive, abusive power and the average American being harmed by losing their fair use rights and independent creators being bullied and abused by the giants behind the copyright cartel. 2020 upended society in many ways and created opportunities to fix various dysfunctional parts of society. It changed things as diverse as work-from-home norms to laws around takeaway alcohol from restaurants. The possibility to also improve copyright restrictions seems reasonable.
    • pcaharrier 2y ago
• AdmiralAsshat 2y ago
  So is it game over for IA?
  • TZubiri 2y ago
    This only affects their book library. And they will probably only respond to takedown requests rather than take it down
• pcaharrier 2y ago
  This struck me as significant (buried in the opinion's last footnote): "IA makes a final argument that, even if its Open Libraries project did not qualify as a fair use, we should restrict the injunction to the Open Libraries project and allow IA to continue CDL for books that IA itself owns. In support of that argument, IA argues that the fourth factor analysis would be more favorable if CDL were limited to IA’s own books. In our view, the fair use analysis would not be substantially different if limited to IA’s CDL of the books it owns, and the fourth factor still would count against fair use. So we decline IA’s invitation to narrow the scope of our holding or of the district court’s injunction." In other words, even if one purchases a print copy of the book, fair use would not allow them to lend a digital copy of the book to one person at a time. Why the court concludes that that "would not be substantially different" is unclear from just this footnote.
  • joe5150 2y ago
    It's absurd that the most consequential part of this entire ruling is treated as a literal footnote and given no more due consideration.
    • pie_flavor 2y ago
      It's a footnote because it's the most inconsequential part of the ruling. The copyright infringement status of making thousands of unlicensed digital copies is not affected by whether you own a physical copy or not.
      • squeaky-clean 2y ago
        This ruling isn't about making thousands of digital copies. They're no longer able to offer even 1 digital copy. The CDL is where they would buy N physical copies of a book, and then allow N active rentals of the digitally scanned version of that book with a waiting list for when people "return" them. Can't do that anymore.
        • pie_flavor 2y ago
• preciousoo 2y ago
  Donation link for the archive: https://archive.org/donate https://archive.org/donate
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• symlinkk 2y ago
  Yeah, you can’t just give away copyrighted books for free, lol.
  • altruios 2y ago
    If you buy them first, they are yours to give away...
  • mdp2021 2y ago
    It is what we have been doing for the whole of history.
• tombert 2y ago
  I still cannot imagine how IA thought that giving unrestricted access to copyrighted books was a good idea. It seemed inevitable that someone would sue them over it. Honestly, I think that IA's ambivalence towards the use of their website for outright piracy might lead to their collapse, and that's a shame. The Archive can be a really wonderful tool, though I'm not sure that its current management really knows what they're doing.
  • codedokode 2y ago
    IA was trying to act like a library: they bought physical books and lent digital scans of them, ensuring that only one user can read one book at a time. So IA's position is that you can treat digital books like physical books, i.e. re-sell them or lend. The only difference is that they don't require you to come to library in person. Publishers position is that digital books are different from physical; you have no right to re-sell or lend it without publisher's permission. This is what this case is about.
    • tredre3 2y ago
      Nobody complained when IA was lending to one user at a time. The lawsuits started when they removed that restriction during covid.
      • deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      • zinekeller 2y ago
        Techincally the publisheres were already complaining before but they knew that the stakes were really unclear (there is a possibility that they lose and set a precedent against their wishes), but IA realy opened a gaping hole with the emergency lending program.
• boomboomsubban 2y ago
  This article doesn't mention controlled digital lending at all, what the entire lawsuit was about, and instead spends a significant chunk of the article on the national emergency library, a program that got like a one sentence mention in the judgment.
  • tombert 2y ago
    I think it was the catalyst for the whole lawsuit though. If they had done just CDL, then I think that the book companies would have just tolerated it.
    • boomboomsubban 2y ago
      It wasn't, the book publishers were clearly preparing the lawsuit for years before the NEL. The logic doesn't even make sense, if their objection was to the NEL they would have sued over that and the lawsuit would have been over four years ago.
      • tombert 2y ago
        > It wasn't, the book publishers were clearly preparing the lawsuit for years before the NEL. Even if that were true, they could have still been waiting for something like NEL to start the process, if nothing else to get the narrative on their side. I don't know, I don't work for a book company.
        • boomboomsubban 2y ago
          I'll agree that the NEL was a PR boon for this case, it's turned most of the discourse on this topic into people saying the IA deserved it for something unrelated to the case. That's a different claim than "book publishers would have tolerated CDL without it."
          • tombert 2y ago
            Sure, fair enough, they were probably just waiting for the right time to pounce. The NEL was as good a time as any, but it was probably a matter of "when", not "if".
• jrockway 2y ago
  Someone has to push the limits to see where they actually are. Now we know.
  • jzb 2y ago
    We knew. This was a dumb move on IA's part. I support the organization wholeheartedly, but it was a dumb and risky move. (They may be morally correct, but there was little if any doubt that they'd overstepped the legal bounds.)
  • tptacek 2y ago
    That's an overly simplistic way to look at this. Depending on the fact pattern you bring to a case, you will get different limits, which then apply to everyone later on regardless of their own fact patterns. IA took just about the worst possible fact pattern all the way to the 2nd Circuit for no discernible reason.
  • JoshTriplett 2y ago
    Now we should fix those limits to be less broken.
  • EarlKing 2y ago
    We already knew what those limits were. This accomplished nothing other than endangering the internet archive by committing mass acts of copyright infringement. Ultimately, if he wanted to push the limits and get the law changed through judicial activism, he should've done it in his personal capacity rather than as a policy of the internet archive.
• EGreg 2y ago
  I don’t think it’s lost its appeal. A lot of people love using it
• quartesixte 2y ago
  Really wish one of the billionaires would fund a publishing house that worked off a very different model than the Copyright Protection Scheme that the current majors used. Something that would allow authors to capture upsides, publishers to recoup, and information to spread freely. Patronage? Large Advances + Subscriptions? Something besides what we have now. Writing a 200 - 300 page book takes fair bit of effort and time that is not directly compensated, hence advances and the upside of royalties.
  • vidarh 2y ago
    The majority of authors who write novels hardly earn money as it is. I've written two novels, and they've sold more than average, and yet it can't cover my takeaway budget. That's fine, it's a hobby. But the point is only a vanishingly small minority write for money. Of course we want to keep some of those who do, but I don't know what a good solution would be. Not least because there's a vast chasm in terms of effort: a novel of the same length can take days or years, and it's not at all a given the low effort one will be the worst one.
    • jandrese 2y ago
      It's not about making money for the author, it's about making money for the publishing company. Nobody in government cares about the authors.
  • daedrdev 2y ago
    Even the publishers themselves loose money on most books they publish. Its something crazy like 65% of titles loose money, and 4% of books make 60% of the profits They book industry is much similar to venture capital, where a bunch of bets are made on books that they hope they hit it big, and get the rest of their income from the long tail of previous books they hang onto. https://www.elysian.press/p/no-one-buys-books https://www.elysian.press/p/no-one-buys-books
• jandrese 2y ago
  Very much not a surprise. I think the Internet Archive is providing an invaluable service to humanity in preserving works that would otherwise be lost to time. it is one of the crown jewels of the Internet, doing a job that nobody else is willing to do. But at the same time I know the courts side with publishers pretty much every time and copyright law being such as it is they're totally screwed. The only real question is how many trillions dollars will the judgment be. Preserving history is at odds with the profit motive, and lawmakers care a lot more about the latter than the former.
  • wslh 2y ago
    But, beyond this ruling, could Internet Archive just scan the books, store the data and release it to the public at a later time? I am just thinking about the preservation part in your comment.
    • jandrese 2y ago
      "A later time" being the after the year 2100 for most of these works. I am not exaggerating. If the author is still alive today their works won't enter the public domain until after you are dead. One can argue that the Internet Archive would be effectively useless if they strictly followed copyright law.
      • wslh 2y ago
        I only separated the logic based on your point about preservation. I completely agree that copyright rules are often abused and modified 'a piacere.' The topic of preservation resonated with me because I do amateur research in genealogy, and, for example, if you don’t interview great-grandparents or grandparents, much of that information could become irrecoverable later.
        • jandrese 2y ago
          My overall point was "are works actually preserved if they are locked away and inaccessible?" A work that technically exists, but is inaccessible until after your death is effectively lost to you.
• fudged71 2y ago
  “If libraries were invented today they would be illegal”
• ChrisArchitect 2y ago
  Internet Archive response blog post: https://blog.archive.org/2024/09/04/internet-archive-responds-to-appellate-opinion/ https://blog.archive.org/2024/09/04/internet-archive-respond...
  • system2 2y ago
    I love IA but I won't sign their petition. If I wrote a book and it is freely distributed by IA I would be pissed too. There is no argument here.
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
• ilamont 2y ago
  This has been playing out for many years. And it's all because Brewster Kahle decided that an overly broad interpretation of the Internet Archive's mission trumped the rights of authors and publishers, and the laws of the United States. When IA was asked to stop CDL - many times - he continued. The National Writers Union tried to open a dialogue as early as 2010 but was ignored: The Internet Archive says it would rather talk with writers individually than talk to the NWU or other writers’ organizations. But requests by NWU members to talk to or meet with the Internet Archive have been ignored or rebuffed. https://nwu.org/nwu-denounces-cdl/ https://nwu.org/nwu-denounces-cdl/ When the requests to abandon CDL turned into demands, Kahle dug in his heels. When the inevitable lawsuits followed, and IA lost, he insisted that he was still in the right and plowed ahead with appeals. He also opened a new front in the court of public opinion. In his blog posts and interviews with U.S. media, Kahle portrays the court cases and legal judgements as a crusade against the Internet Archive and all librarians (see https://blog.archive.org/2023/12/15/brewster-kahle-appeal-statement/ https://blog.archive.org/2023/12/15/brewster-kahle-appeal-st...). It's not. It's the logical outcome of one man's seemingly fanatical conviction against the law and the people who work very hard to bring new books into being. In addition, there has been real collateral damage to the many noble aspects of the Internet Archive. Legal fees and judgements have diverted resources away from the Wayback Machine, the library of public domain works, and other IA programs that provide real value to society. I truly hope the organization can survive.
  • dannyobrien 2y ago
    I disagree with this assessment on many levels, but I think the most important challenge I can make is to the idea that Brewster Kahle is a rogue actor, who in some sense mis-interpreted the mission and strategy of the Internet Archive. For those of you who are just learning that name from this lawsuit, here's his wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_Kahle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_Kahle Kahle founded the Archive in the nineties, in the midst of the fairly determined attempts at that time to either delay or even re-engineer the early Internet to be more respectful of existing intellectual property and decency laws. We inherit a searchable, saveable web, because of the work done then to establish the norm that the Internet itself should exist, and that open digital archives can exist, legally. Many many people worked on the first issue. But Kahle played a far far larger role in the second battle. So these "noble aspects" of "real value to society", as you rightly describe them, came from fighting for them -- by rolling them into existence in the face of opposition and skepticism. So I understand the concern that this court decision threatens the future of some forms of archiving, digital preservation and librarianship. But the existing norms and repositories this threatens exist because people established those norms and archiving projects before now, in living memory, even in the face of threats and lectures about precedent and worries about legal gray areas. If you want to defend and protect "the many noble aspects of the archive", you have to remember that thirty years ago, those were imagined as impossible, impractical, and (whisper it) probably illegal. In both cases, it was Kahle's vision and approach that was -- apparently -- the only way it was going to get done. So I profoundly disagree that this is somehow a wild chase out of the safe and respectable grounds of the Archive's core mission. The Archive's core mission got to be respectable because Kahle chased the wild idea, and established its right to exist. That may sound like I'm overstating Kahle's role, and/or overstating the initially radical, now widely-respected nature of pretty much everything the Archive has done. But if it's not the case -- why is there only one Internet Archive? Why didn't other people, other national archives, other commercial concerns or non-profits join in this work? Why did only Kahle do it, and why was it only Kahle coming up with CDL as an idea to prevent the death of first sale, of lending a book, of the idea of a free library in a digital future? There should be more ideas, more Internet Archives, of course, for safety's sake. But absolutely nothing about Kahle's mission to create a library of and on the Internet was ever "safe".
• breck 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • Petersipoi 2y ago
    > All updates are subject to approval by the World Wide Scroll reps. Lol, no thank you. Bold of you to try and become the arbiter of all human knowledge in this dystopian future you envision.
    • breck 2y ago
      Any better suggestions? I put that in just as a suggestion for an enforcement mechanism in case people put trackers in their folders. But if you look at the design of the WWS, it is radically anti-censorship. The only thing that would be moderated would be that single "root.scroll" file.
• Ekaros 2y ago
  Whole thing should be obvious if you tried something else too. Like say DVD movies, rip them on free service and then only stream 1 copy at time... Surely that should be allowed as well? Why not music too, go out buy cds or vinyls, rip single one and now however many bulk copies you have you can stream at one time? Software gets bit more messy as it needs to be installed, but why not share saas seats, just somehow enforce single concurrent user...
  • mdp2021 2y ago
    It is not clear if this user knows about mediatheques.
• sentrysapper 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • dmonitor 2y ago
    IA was not providing rental access. They were supposed to do that, but instead were just distributing copies of the books without any kind of rental system.
  • CaptainFever 2y ago
    My pet peeve is the usage of vague pejoratives like "neoliberal" without actually describing what it means. I know that the r/neoliberal subreddit, name selected ironically, is fairly pro-piracy.
• lakomen 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • mdp2021 2y ago
    Ill-expressed, but can be interpreted plausibly.
• Glyptodon 2y ago
  They should go for the route of letting people view webcam streams that look at physical book pages. Just need a camera per page or two.
  • gdw2 2y ago
    Sounds like a similar concept to Aereo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aereo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aereo) > Aereo leased each user an individual antenna and DVR situated in a remote warehouse that they could access over the Internet, allowing subscribers to view live broadcast television and to record the broadcasts for later viewing.
    • EvanAnderson 2y ago
      For anyone who doesn't know, though, SCOTUS ruled against Aereo, who subsequently closed-up shop, filed for Chapter 11, and eventually were sold to DirectTV. You can't "clever" around the intent of the law (or around a well-funded lobby). An O'Connor v. Oakhurst Dairy[0] are the exception, not the rule. (Aside: This is nothing at all like O'Connor v. Oakhurst Dairy-- I just can't resist the urge to cite it. It's too fun.) [0] https://www.fedbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Commentary-pdf-1.pdf https://www.fedbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Commentary...
      • tpdly 2y ago
        The trouble is that this all builds from case law established before people could use magic vision portals to exploit efficiencies of scale and centralization. That's not even addressing the magic of infinite copying-- lets suppose we all agree publishers deserve secondary markets be restricted to physical copies. Then the digital age gives us literal magic portals but the benefits are withheld from society because... they want their money. There were laws protecting that money before so the intent of the law is to protect the money in the new age too. For shame.
        • EvanAnderson 2y ago
          > Then the digital age gives us literal magic portals but the benefits are withheld from society because... they want their money. I'm so jaded about this now that I just assume things won't change until most of the people born before computers were "mainstream" die. Even then it'll probably take another generation or two for the cultural indoctrination associated with "intellectual property" to die out. And no change will happen if general purpose computers (and the freedom they offer) are effectively removed from daily life. It seems to be going that way via normalization of walled gardens in the name of "security" and the infuriating argument that the computers everybody carries around (smartphones) somehow aren't actually computers and shouldn't allow for end user freedom.
• dang 2y ago
  Url changed from https://twitter.com/PublishersWkly/status/1831357570365497379 https://twitter.com/PublishersWkly/status/183135757036549737..., which points to this.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• dang 2y ago
  Related URLs (from threads we merged hither) in case of interest: https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/4/24235958/internet-archive-loses-appeal-ebook-lending https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/4/24235958/internet-archive-... https://www.wired.com/story/internet-archive-loses-hachette-books-case-appeal/ https://www.wired.com/story/internet-archive-loses-hachette-... https://finance.yahoo.com/news/major-book-publishers-defeat-internet-181817991.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/major-book-publishers-defeat-... https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/internet-archive-digital-lending-isnt-fair-use-2nd-cir-says https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/internet-archive-digita...
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• puppycodes 2y ago
  What a disgusting lawsuit. I struggle to beleive in the "lost profits" these publishers "suffer" from. Libraries, digital and physical alike are incredible and neccessary institutions that deserve our support.
• thimabi 2y ago
  At this point, the Internet Archive should consider simply moving to another jurisdiction. Decisions like this are a shame, because they hinder a proper way to deal with piracy. Physical libraries compete with book sales too, but of course libraries are lawful. Why should digital libraries be treated differently? Because there are ways to circumvent DRM on Internet Archive books? Well, there are ways to bypass DRM on sold ebooks, too. Perhaps IA’s greatest mistake was to allow unrestricted lending during the pandemic. If it had kept its original mission, maybe things would not have ended up like this.
  • pie_flavor 2y ago
    Digital libraries are treated differently because they transmit the book by copying it from one machine to another, physical libraries transmit the book by handing it to you without making any copies, and copyright law restricts copying. DRM doesn't have anything to do with this, the fact that you use the word 'library' to describe the former doesn't have anything to do with this, and the fact that IA didn't make a new copy unless the recipient of the old one had deleted it doesn't have anything to do with this: unlicensed copying outside of fair use is copyright infringement. The remedy for feeling that this is unfair is calling your congressman to change copyright law, not violating it on purpose and then complaining when you get sued.
  • FMecha 2y ago
    >At this point, the Internet Archive should consider simply moving to another jurisdiction. Except international copyright treaties exist, which makes copyright enforcement effectively extraterritorial.
    • thimabi 2y ago
      That truly depends on the jurisdiction. International treaties are not generally above a country’s constitution, and there are several countries where the right to education and to access literary works might take precedence over copyright. I’m not saying copyright is not enforced internationally; rather, IA’s perspective on copyright might be viewed more favorably in other countries.
  • 2y ago
• lupusreal 2y ago
  CDL was incredibly stupid. DRM and legal trouble from pissed off publishers? That's the worst of both worlds. Pick one or the other, not both. It would have been better for Archive.org to ignore books and leave that domain to the pirates and legacy libraries; one defying the law and giving people books without DRM, and the other staying safely inside the law. With the combination of these two we have the best of both worlds, instead of the worst of both.
  • codedokode 2y ago
    What this court decision establishes is that you cannot treat the digital books the same way you can treat physical books. For example, you can re-sell or lend a physical book under "first-sale doctrine" but you cannot do the same with a digital book. So "they the people" have less rights now.
    • lupusreal 2y ago
      There was literally no upside to the CDL. Neither in theory from the start nor in the ultimate outcome.
      • codedokode 2y ago
        The upside that you can lend a book without visiting a library; if you live in a remote area you don't need to travel; if you like reading at night you can do it; if you are a foreigner or illegal migrant, you can lend a book too. So digital library, lending books over Internet is much better than a physical library.
        • greyface- 2y ago
          Looking at it through this lens, unauthorized shadow libraries are even better than CDL.
          • lupusreal 2y ago
            Exactly. If you're going to defy publishers it is better to go all the way and offer ebooks actually for free instead of doing the CDL's stupid DRM scheme.
• AlbertCory 2y ago
  If I can relate this to movies [1], it might be illuminating: Watching a movie, you normally get a "home viewing" license. That does not give you the right to show it at your business (even if you don't charge money and only 10 people come). There's also a Public Performance Rights (PPR) license, and I always had to get PPR's because Google lawyers would shut us down otherwise. PPR costs considerably more than a home viewing license. When I negotiated PPR's, they always asked three questions: 1. How many in the audience? 2. Are you charging money? 3. Are you advertising this outside Google? If I were a movie theater taking $15 a head from anyone who showed up, my PPR would cost a lot more. It seems that what IA wants is to use home viewing rights as though they had PPR's. "No, they don't!" you retort? You might be right, but asking AG to design a license for them would be a lot more friendly than saying, "Hey, this is fair to you, take it!" Edit: one thing I forgot to add: lawyers always prefer to start with their own draft. We can hypothesize a conversation between IA and AG (which never actually happened): [IA] Hey, can we use your books? Write us a new agreement. [AG] OK, that'll take a few months for a first draft. Then we'll negotiate. [IA] OMG, we don't have all that time. [AG] Okey-dokey, we'll see you in court. [1] https://albertcory50.substack.com/p/culture-at-google-part-one-the-movies https://albertcory50.substack.com/p/culture-at-google-part-o...
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • bhickey 2y ago
    > Supposedly an employee once filed a ticket saying “please put a pony in my office.” (He didn’t get one, in case you’re wondering, although one hears conflicting stories on this.) benley did get a pony for a day though had to provide his own fodder. There's a photo of him and Vint Cerf with the pony floating around.
  • kragen 2y ago
    there is no such thing as a 'home viewing license'; you don't know the basics of us copyright law, despite having negotiated public performance rights licenses. you need a license from the copyright holder (or a fair use defense) when, and only when, you are doing one of the things reserved to the copyright holder under 17 usc §106 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106. specifically, 17 usc §106(4) is public performance. 17 usc §106(3) is distribution to the public, which is what the ia was doing no sort of viewing, home or otherwise, is restricted in any way by the copyright law. you will not find the phrase 'home viewing license' in any us case law about copyright. ('residential viewing license' does occur in cases about 47 usc §605, which is not a copyright law.) you just made it up without having any idea what you're talking about. you should not mislead people about your expertise in that way; it is a bad thing to do
• Cheyana 2y ago
  I’ve purchased quite a few old books from online booksellers based on my browsing of them through IA so I hope, at least, there could be some way to still expose these old treasures to people so they could somehow acquire a printed copy of them.
  • tourmalinetaco 2y ago
    Piracy is realistically the only option for books that are not printed but also not in the public domain.
    • exitb 2y ago
      Big publishers don’t care for those cases, but they’d rather you don’t spend time with that and buy a fresh, new book they just printed.
      • account42 2y ago
        Right, but there is no reason why we need to let publishers have a say in the matter.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• 9021007 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • mdp2021 2y ago
    > what the hell were they thinking Doing their duty?! The progress of civilization?!
    • mezzie2 2y ago
      Nothing preventing them from having good ideals and few brain cells. Which is where my opinion falls: I agree with their ideals but their tactics are bad. I don't want friendly soldiers marching into machine gun fire, personally.
• 29athrowaway 2y ago
  There is warez in the Internet Archive.
• jMyles 2y ago
  We're getting closer and closer to a situation where some jurisdiction eschews so-called "intellectual property" altogether, and then houses essentially of the data on the internet. What will happen then? Will other states attempt some kind of embargo? This whole thing feels so childish. The age of owning ideas is over, and all these silly political and legal battles are a waste of the best minds and energies of our time.
  • seanw444 2y ago
    Embargoes are the least the US can do. If you're running something along the lines of a large-scale pirating operation, however lenient the interpretation, you'll end up like Kim Dotcom.
• codedokode 2y ago
  How do AI startups get away with copyright violations? To train AI model they need to download copyrighted works (images, videos, music) into their AI cloud, thus creating a "copy" under US Copyright law. Isn't this outright illegal? There are even datasets, collections of URLs like "common crawl". You cannot legally download them and use without breaking the law. They cannot get away with "fair use" because they are harming creators income by making generative AI using their works. But as there are big money I guess the government will make some exception for them.
  • tourmalinetaco 2y ago
    Because they are not distributing the work, which is how the law currently works. And in case you’re not aware, there are many lawsuits filed that suppose this exact claim: that models are not transformative and are thus breaking copyright law.
    • codedokode 2y ago
      It doesn't matter; before training they download the content for training from Internet and thus make a "copy" which might be illegal.
      • FeepingCreature 2y ago
        This would break all websites. You can't check a license before loading the page. Generally speaking, when you request a site, barring a compelling reason to believe otherwise, the assumption must be that accessing the content is legal.
  • shagie 2y ago
    This is still an open matter of law. The core issue is the transformative test in fair use. Is the model sufficiently transformative? The question of what, if any, impact OpenAI has on the copyright holder's income is yet to be demonstrated in court. So far, the lawsuits launched by the authors haven't gotten very far. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2024/feb/14/two-openai-book-lawsuits-partially-dismissed-by-california-court https://www.theguardian.com/books/2024/feb/14/two-openai-boo... https://casetext.com/case/tremblay-v-openai-inc-6 https://casetext.com/case/tremblay-v-openai-inc-6 > However, the UCL claim does not lack factual allegations; it lacks a tenable legal theory. See Brown v. Van s Int'l Foods, Inc., No. 22-CV-00001-WHO, 2022 WL 1471454, at *6 (N.D. Cal. May 10, 2022) (“As the defect lies in the legal theory, not the factual allegations, the dismissal is without leave to amend.”). The Court dismisses the UCL claim without leave to amend as amendment would be futile. > Tremblay v. OpenAI, Inc., 23-cv-03223-AMO, 5 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 30, 2024) This is only partially dismissed - the unfair competition claim is still open and hasn't been ruled on and is still active and ongoing - https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67538258/tremblay-v-openai-inc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67538258/tremblay-v-ope...
• loongloong 2y ago
  If IA still loses after all avenues of appeals are exhauseted, will they be required to delete the archive or will they merely be required to take it offline? Are private attempts to preserve human knowledge (e.g. IA keeps it offline from public access but continues to archive new works) legal in USA and other major jurisdictions?
• WhereIsTheTruth 2y ago
  They should slap "AI" on it, and they'll get a free pass, like Microsoft
• radarsat1 2y ago
  What will this mean for other sites with similar programs? I know many libraries do similar "renting" of digital texts on their websites. I guess they will have to shut down these programs. For instance, I know this is Canadian so different jurisdiction but here is an example of one: https://montreal.ca/en/services/digital-book-loans https://montreal.ca/en/services/digital-book-loans
  • Tomte 2y ago
    Not at all. They have contracts with publishers, they lend out only the licensed number of copies, and they pay a lot for the privilege. IA lent out infinite copies simultaneously, pays nothing and actively denied to even talk to publishers (and authors).
  • solardev 2y ago
    In the US, libraries pay for special ebook licenses that let them do this through an arrangement with the publishers.
• hilbert42 2y ago
  Things will get worse before they're get better, but ultimately the publishers will pay dearly for this. First, the IA should move to a more favorable copyright jurisdiction to preserve the collection. Second, there's no point fighting the copyright lobby, especially so in the US. We need to build an alternative access to knowledge that bypasses the copyright/ownership of knowledge paradigm.
  • ipatrol 2y ago
    I'm starting to think this is the case, but the US is a country that enforces its version of copyright with gunboats. Not an easy task to simply find another jurisdiction.
    • hilbert42 2y ago
      "US …copyright with gunboats." Right, that's why it will get worse. Unfortunately, we're still only in skirmish territory. And it's a battle we have to win.
      • Y_Y 2y ago
        I think about time for a third opium war. China is manipulating currency through trade restrictions, and the West wants to sell them poison, maybe it's time to sail a carrier group up the Pearl River!
        • hilbert42 2y ago
          The battle that needs to be won is with greedy publishers who don't respect either creators or content consumers. The copyright/patents issue with China is only part of a much bigger political issue. Gunboat diplomacy isn't the solution, history has shown it's made things worse—China hasn't forgotten the Opium Wars.
  • grecy 2y ago
    > the IA should move to a more favorable copyright jurisdiction Ask the team at The Pirate Bay or Kim Dotcom how that worked out for them. The US WILL pursue it's copyright laws to any country on earth.
• the-mitr 2y ago
  Can someone explain if this will also affect archival projects hosted on the Internet Archive?
  • wayathr0w 2y ago
    Depends. This case was specifically about a library of books whose uploads were all done or coordinated by IA's employees. That is something different than the various things, including but not at all limited to books, unaffiliated people upload. It's certainly possible "random people's uploads" could come under increasing scrutiny & legal attack as publishing companies are likely feeling emboldened by the victory, but I don't think that's what this specific ruling was about.
• jamesholden 2y ago
  Key findings and implications: 1. The court rejected IA's fair use defense, finding that its digital lending practices merely substitute for and do not transform the original copyrighted works. 2. IA's activities are likely to cause significant market harm to publishers' e-book and digital licensing businesses, which outweighs any public benefits of expanded access. 3. Allowing widespread unauthorized digital copying and distribution, even by a nonprofit, would undermine the fundamental purpose of copyright law to incentivize creative expression. 4. The ruling highlights the tension between expanding public access to knowledge and preserving authors' and publishers' exclusive rights over their works, which copyright law is meant to balance. 5. The decision sets an important precedent limiting the ability of digital libraries and archives to widely distribute copyrighted works online without permission, even if the intent is to increase public access. -Kagi Sum
• Onlyartist9 2y ago
  I wonder how this ruling could impact all those other proceedings concerning AI training data.
• kuon 2y ago
  Is there torrent of those books we can distribute?
  • tokai 2y ago
    That the dumbest thing about this. All these books are available at Library Genesis or Anna's Archive. There was no reason for IA to distribute illegally when others where doing it with much less risk. Way to risk your main mission with no up side.
    • kuon 2y ago
      I agree. Maybe they should split into separate judiciary entities?
    • wayathr0w 2y ago
      This is nonsense. A great many of Internet Archive's in-house scanned books weren't previously available on shadow libraries; many of the Internet Archive scans have meaningful differences from the digital copies available elsewhere; & much of the shadow libraries' collections actually came to them from the Internet Archive. In the case of Anna's Archive specifically, they conducted a massive scrape of IA's library. I think the legalist approach IA is taking was always doomed, but the enormous resources at their disposal allowed them to do a lot of collecting that other efforts have & will continue to benefit enormously from.
  • jerheinze 2y ago
    https://annas-archive.org/torrents#ia https://annas-archive.org/torrents#ia
• el_jay 2y ago
  Am I to understand that it’s legal and okay for LLM providers to profit massively from training commercial models on copyrighted works, without the rights holders’ permission - but illegal, and unacceptable, for private individuals to access a digital library?
  • agilob 2y ago
    Regulators were convinced LLM/AI will increase GDP by infinity, while you getting a single book for free creates a hole in VAT budget of 2$.
  • AbrahamParangi 2y ago
    Yes, quite straightforwardly. Works may be copyrighted, but all the ideas and stylistic choices which comprise that work generally may not. That the implications of this idea have the “wrong” winners and losers is a separate matter.
  • franciscop 2y ago
    Copyright protects mainly against the distribution of works, not about consumption. It is not the access to the library the bit that is illegal here, it is illegal for that library to distribute works without the copyright holders permission. You might like it or not (I don't), but copyright laws are fairly straightforward.
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
• Garvi 2y ago
  Do any similar services exist outside of US jurisdiction?
• fredgrott 2y ago
  What's sad.... IA could have implemented a situation where book pages could be read with the same copy limits local libraries implement and then point to where the book is sold or point to users local library where book could be checked out.... Instead IA pursued a strategy that would fail...and for what to put the IA mission in harm's way
• ratedgene 2y ago
  IA could turn the org into a massive opportunity by having AI companies use its data for training. They'd have enough to lobby to change the laws hah
• russfink 2y ago
  All very interesting and the brief is easy for me to read.
• miah_ 2y ago
  This is why I stockpile manuals and other guide books, and pirate as much as possible. The publishers don't really care about anything other than cash, even on media they haven't published or updated in decades. I will gladly buy self published and, small run media new, but everything else is used/second-hand. The abuse only stops when you set boundaries.
• throwawaycdl 2y ago
  Controlled Digital Lending was a desperate move in a desperate time. Let's not let it go to waste. https://annas-archive.org/datasets/ia https://annas-archive.org/datasets/ia
• tristor 2y ago
  This decision is ridiculous. It essentially codifies, once and for all, that buying a physical book conveys more rights than buying a digital book, to the buyer. Previously this was de facto the case only because of DRM on the digital book, but this now makes it de jure, regardless of the presence of DRM. By my take, the only correct action any right-thinking person can do is civil disobedience and work to archive, anonymously and for the public, as much written works as possible. This is an absolute theft of the commons, and particularly heinous.
• OKCowboy 2y ago
  [flagged]
• phendrenad2 2y ago
  sigh Entirely avoidable, entirely predictable. It's time to talk about what happens next. The Internet Archive must cost a fortune to run. There's no way they're going to get enough donation money if they only provide old website archives. Their "online library of everything" gambit was an attempt to boost their donations by attracting a wider audience. They'll have to diminish the capabilities of the wayback machine in some way. I think they'll replace domain-based search with some kind of LLM-based conversational frontend, grabbing some funding from OpenAI or someone in the process. It's too bad. I've been scraping the wayback machine ever since they did this stupid "pandemic library" and I noticed that they were allowing full movie and game rips with zero moderation. I'd like to have gotten a more complete archive, but what I have now is pretty good for my own uses. If you did the same, good job. If you didn't, well, I did warn you over and over ( https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=phendrenad2%20archive&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... )
• lofaszvanitt 2y ago
  The real question is, why can't you buy their old books from publishers...
• tylervigen 2y ago
  I wish IA had not started this fight. I love libraries, but it's totally unintuitive to me why it would have been OK to rent out unlimited digital copies of copywritten books. Just from a policy perspective, that structure doesn't create the right incentives for authors and publishers to publish books. It's a non-starter unless you make some broader societal change regarding how we fund writing. IA does plenty of other awesome things - this felt like a waste of time and money.
• mymythisisthis 2y ago
  How would you download all the English books in, .pdf format, printed from 1800 to 1900 - as those are legal to download? What size of storage would you need?
• steeeeeve 2y ago
  This appeal will further be appealed. There are logical contradictions within the decision. Further, the judges have come to a conclusion at the summary judgement phase that does not meet the basic criteria of looking at things in the light that best favors the defendant.
  • account42 2y ago
    I wonder if IA intentionally made a weaker case to drag this in front of the supreme course in order to be able to set a stronger precedent?
• rldjbpin 2y ago
  iirc they still got the chance to appeal at supreme court, so we shall hear about this in a few quarters time. personally, if you disconnect the rest of IA from the "CDL" aspect and look at the lawsuit this way, it seems to me like another instance where from legislative perspective, owning a digital copy of media remains inferior to owning the physical one. the affordances of the digital technologies has been used as a way to exploit the laws' interpretation. AI is shaping up to be the next frontier of this matter, but we don't have a large player (with community focus and not big tech money) that could be tested as a scapegoat just yet.
• BLACK_hHOLE2729 2y ago
  [flagged]
• mikewarot 2y ago
  Clearly copyright law is wrong, and needs correction. The extensive use of the propaganda term "Intellectual Property" is the first thing that has to go. There is no such thing. There are copyrights, trade marks, and patents. Each of these involve a government enforced monopoly, which is granted to help benefit society in the long run. The benefits to society stopped outweighing the costs a long time ago. There is no natural cost to making a digital copy of a work, or using an idea. Nothing in nature stops the spreading of good ideas. It is only by fiat that such things are restricted with the force of Government. Clearly creators of works need to be encouraged in their efforts, they need to be paid. Far too many creators are not fairly paid, with a rent seeking entity utilizing the asymmetry of the market to abuse them. This needs to end. The excess profits for those rent seekers are an unlegislated, and hidden tax upon the rest of us. This also needs to end. The political use of copyright to control debate and limit free speech needs to end. What's Legal isn't the same as what is Moral. It's time to re-balance the law to more fairly treat all involved.
• LorenzoIQ 2y ago
  [flagged]