Mobileread
Internet Archive sued by big publishers
#1  Arrghus 06-04-2020, 02:24 PM
I couldn't see a thread about this. Please merge if I've missed one.

I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/06/publishers-sue-internet-archive-over-massive-digital-lending-program/

Quote
"Despite the Open Library moniker, IA's actions grossly exceed legitimate library services, do violence to the Copyright Act, and constitute willful digital piracy on an industrial scale," write publishers Hachette, HarperCollins, Wiley, and Penguin Random House in their complaint. The lawsuit was filed in New York federal court on Monday.
Reply 

#2  tubemonkey 06-04-2020, 03:00 PM
About time! They should've stuck with public domain. Now they risk losing it all and they only have themselves to blame.

I liked their PD stuff, especially the Old-Time Radio shows. It'll be a shame if this content goes away.
Reply 

#3  jhowell 06-04-2020, 03:15 PM
Quote tubemonkey
Now they risk losing it all and they only have themselves to blame.
There is an argument that they intentionally provoked a lawsuit with the goal of forcing changes to copyright law.

Analysis on The Digital Reader Blog: Four Publishers File Suit Over Internet Archive’s Pirate Site
Reply 

#4  tubemonkey 06-04-2020, 03:30 PM
Quote jhowell
There is an argument that they intentionally provoked a lawsuit with the goal of forcing changes to copyright law.

Analysis on The Digital Reader Blog: Four Publishers File Suit Over Internet Archive’s Pirate Site
If they wish to become a legal library, then they need to follow the same rules public libraries follow.

I'll take a look at the article shortly.
Reply 

#5  Paperbackstash 06-04-2020, 04:46 PM
If they are posting copyright material, not surprised.
Reply 

#6  fjtorres 06-04-2020, 05:40 PM
Quote jhowell
There is an argument that they intentionally provoked a lawsuit with the goal of forcing changes to copyright law.

Analysis on The Digital Reader Blog: Four Publishers File Suit Over Internet Archive’s Pirate Site
Read the comments there and the replies or lack thereof.

As pointed out by Chris Matthews of TELEREAD:

Quote


Not a lawyer, but my layman’s understanding of the law leads me to doubt that any court would ever find Controlled Digital Lending to be a fair use. All four factors of the litmus test weigh against it.

Remember, the four factors are:

the purpose and character of your use
the nature of the copyrighted work
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
the effect of the use upon the potential market.

Purpose and character: This use is not transformative in any major way; it simply copies the entire work to digital. Not being transformative weighs against fair use.

Nature of the work: This includes fiction works, and fiction works have a higher bar to clear than factual works. Including fiction weighs against fair use.

Amount and substantiality: It takes the whole work, meaning it’s less likely to be fair than if it just excerpted. Taking the whole work weighs against fair use.

Effect of use on the market: This is the biggest factor for CDL, I think—if libraries are permitted to do this, it will utterly wipe out the publishers’ library ebook sale programs. Why would a library pay a small fortune for ebooks that expire after a set number of checkouts if they could just buy extra paper books and warehouse them and then check those ebooks out forever? It could also have a depressive effect on sales of regular ebooks by making digital ones so broadly available. Threatening to wipe out an entire market weighs heavily against fair use.

If Kahle thinks that he can get courts to find in favor of CDL just because Google won its own lawsuit, he’s badly fooling himself.
So is anybody thinking breaking a law that puts that much money in so many people (authors, editors, publishers, truck drivers, warehouse workers, bookstore clerks and, above all, politicians) is going to make it go away has been inhaling too often. And that's just books: do remember that the same law that covers books covers software, clothing, furniture, cars, games, music, movies, TV, theaters, and feeds everyone that makes, transports or sells any of the above. Among many other things not covered by patents or trademarks.

If the case doesn't see a summary judgment in the first session there will be more "friends of the court" filings hitting the court than books in the "library" . The mass of the filing alpne will bury the judge.

Here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE

or this:

https://www.purplekittyyarns.com/info/copyright.html

Or this:

https://www.popularwoodworking.com/interviews/imitation-illegal/


The only people against IP rights are the people that never created anything worth anything.

Remember that Creative Commons and Opensource licenses are themselves exercises of copyright ownership. It is up to the creatives and their authorized representativds to decide when and how their creations can distributed. No some self appointed dude on the internet.
Reply 

#7  fjtorres 06-04-2020, 05:41 PM
Quote Paperbackstash
If they are posting copyright material, not surprised.
They are.
Proudly.
Because "information wants to be free".
Reply 

#8  pwalker8 06-04-2020, 06:26 PM
Quote fjtorres
Read the comments there and the replies or lack thereof.

...

The only people against IP rights are the people that never created anything worth anything.

Remember that Creative Commons and Opensource licenses are themselves exercises of copyright ownership. It is up to the creatives and their authorized representativds to decide when and how their creations can distributed. No some self appointed dude on the internet.
That's just factually wrong and rather obviously so. google dedicated to public domain. Of course, you could be using the True Scotsman fallacy by claiming any work released by the author into the public domain must not be worth anything.

Not to say that the Internet Archive isn't rather obviously breaking the law and seems rather unlikely to find a sympathetic judge. It does seem that they were deliberately looking to be sued. No idea what they thought they were going to accomplish.
Reply 

#9  rcentros 06-04-2020, 07:14 PM
It has the feel of Don Quixote tilting at windmills. I always thought Archive.org was somehow supported by government funds. Maybe because of all the public domain stuff.
Reply 

#10  fjtorres 06-04-2020, 08:22 PM
Quote pwalker8
That's just factually wrong and rather obviously so. google dedicated to public domain. Of course, you could be using the True Scotsman fallacy by claiming any work released by the author into the public domain must not be worth anything.

Not to say that the Internet Archive isn't rather obviously breaking the law and seems rather unlikely to find a sympathetic judge. It does seem that they were deliberately looking to be sued. No idea what they thought they were going to accomplish.
Read again.
I'm not talking about creator's choosing Creative Commons or any of the OpenSource licenses. Those creators are exercising *their* right under the law. And I explicitly excluded them. They are part of tbe system the IA thinks they can obviate. They can charge whatever they want, including nothing. They created it, they own tbe copyright. *They* are entitled to do anything they want with it.

I'm talking about the online chatterers and "activists".
And the people who listen to them and buy that hooey.

Those aren't entitled to "public domain" somebody else's property just because "information wants to be free" or because they can make money off sleazy ads on a sire ful of torrents. Pirates are pirates however tbey style themselves.
Reply 

  Next »  Last »  (1/8)
Today's Posts | Search this Thread | Login | Register