Archive.org Loses Lawsuit Over Copyright Infringement

erek

erek

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
10,894
Hmm

"The Guild also claimed that it approached the Internet Archive years ago to create a license for books used on the Open Library, but the nonprofit declined to work with the organization.

However, more than 300 prominent authors—including Naomi Klein, Neil Gaiman, Hanif Abdurraqib, Chuck Wendig, and Cory Doctorow—previously signed an open letter asking publishers and trade associations to cease the lawsuit in late September.

“Big Publishing would outlaw public libraries if it could — or at least make it impossible for libraries to buy and lend books as they have traditionally done, to enormous public benefit — and its campaign against the Internet Archive is a step toward that goal,” said co-founder of News Co/Lab, an initiative to elevate news literacy, at Arizona State University, Dan Gillmor."

ebooks.jpg


Source: https://time.com/6266147/internet-archive-copyright-infringement-books-lawsuit/
 
Brought it up in a different thread relating to game preservation. I hope this doesn't have lasting negative effects on efforts toward digital preservation. I didn't partake in the service for books, myself, but a digital library only makes sense in this day and age. Maybe these authors and publishers should just get with the times.
 
Internet archive fucked around and found out.

They used to go "we have one physical copy of this book we scanned, so therefore we can lend out one digital copy at a time. When that digital copy is returned/expired, then we can lend the next digital copy of it out" and that was in compliance and they were left unscathed.

Then, starting with COVID, for those same titles, they went "lulz we scanned one physical book here's a billion copies of it for everyone all at once" and then act all shocked Pikachu when this happened as a result.

It's only a crime if they catch you, and they got caught. No one to blame but themselves if you ask me.

Edit: This would be like if someone invited the head of the RIAA and MPAA to be a user(s) on their Plex server, do the math, what do you expect?

Double edit: It just ticks me off when they try to hide behind virtue "oH tHeY'd BaN lIbRaRiEz We'Re Da GoOd GuYz!!!1!!111!11!!"

Just fess up.
 
Last edited:
staknhalo said:
Internet archive fucked around and found out.

They used to go "we have one physical copy of this book we scanned, so therefore we can lend out one digital copy at a time. When that digital copy is returned/expired, then we can lend the next digital copy of it out" and that was in compliance and they were left unscathed.

Then, starting with COVID, for those same titles, they went "lulz we scanned one physical book here's a billion copies of it for everyone all at once" and then act all shocked Pikachu when this happened as a result.

It's only a crime if they catch you, and they got caught. No one to blame but themselves if you ask me.

Edit: This would be like if someone invited the head of the RIAA and MPAA to be a user(s) on their Plex server, do the math, what do you expect?
Click to expand...
what about archive.is ?

it's unlocking pay walls all over
 
I didn't know they archived books.

I've only ever used them to find content from webpages that have since gone away.

I hope this fo s not hurt that effort. It is really very useful, and sometimes the Internet Archive is the only source of such information.

I fear lots of stuff will be lost if their efforts are ended.

EDIT: I think I may have gotten different archive efforts confused.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I didn't know they archived books.

I've only ever used them to find content from webpages that have since gone away.

I hope this fo s not hurt that effort. It is really very useful, and sometimes the Internet Archive is the only source of such information.

I fear lots of stuff will be lost if their efforts are ended.

EDIT: I think I may have gotten different archive efforts confused.
Click to expand...
what about books.google.com ?
 
staknhalo said:
Poke the lion in the face all you want, just don't try to paint the lion as the bad guy to me when it then bites you
Click to expand...
This is a great analogy because no matter how you or anyone else paints the lion - the lion will always bite you no matter what.

FWIW I ceased donating to the IA when they announced this bullshit during COVID - it was clear from the beginning that they would get slapped for it.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I didn't know they archived books.

I've only ever used them to find content from webpages that have since gone away.

I hope this fo s not hurt that effort. It is really very useful, and sometimes the Internet Archive is the only source of such information.

I fear lots of stuff will be lost if their efforts are ended.

EDIT: I think I may have gotten different archive efforts confused.
Click to expand...
Same organization.
 
What Internet Archive did is illegal. However, what is legal is not necessarily moral or ethical as what is illegal is not necessarily immoral or unethical. Copyright law is government protectionism in favor of copyright holders, for good or ill. The digital era has entirely changed the landscape of this debate, and yet the law has not adapted to this new environment. In fact it has only become more restrictive. Copyright law in the United States is largely written with the best interest of The Walt Disney Company in mind, to the exclusion of all others, including the individual or the good of society. The Walt Disney Company has throughout it's history made quite a lot of money off of their adaptation of public domain works, yet it will fight tooth and nail to prevent Mickey Mouse from entering that same public domain. Also, Disney is now easily the biggest Hollywood studio, an industry that repeatedly has ripped off works that are still under copyright with no attribution or compensation, to the point that stealing is considered best practice & hand waved away in some interview years later by saying they were "inspired by", for example Kurosawa.

Ultimately with intellectual property stealing is considered OK, but only if you have the power & influence to get away with it.
 
EmerilLIVE said:
What Internet Archive did is illegal. However, what is legal is not necessarily moral or ethical as what is illegal is not necessarily immoral or unethical. Copyright law is government protectionism in favor of copyright holders, for good or ill. The digital era has entirely changed the landscape of this debate, and yet the law has not adapted to this new environment. In fact it has only become more restrictive. Copyright law in the United States is largely written with the best interest of The Walt Disney Company in mind, to the exclusion of all others, including the individual or the good of society. The Walt Disney Company has throughout it's history made quite a lot of money off of their adaptation of public domain works, yet it will fight tooth and nail to prevent Mickey Mouse from entering that same public domain. Also, Disney is now easily the biggest Hollywood studio, an industry that repeatedly has ripped off works that are still under copyright with no attribution or compensation, to the point that stealing is considered best practice & hand waved away in some interview years later by saying they were "inspired by", for example Kurosawa.

Ultimately with intellectual property stealing is considered OK, but only if you have the power & influence to get away with it.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. But there's also some people who will always make excuses for why they pirate, instead of just truthfully saying 'because I can' - and that's who IA have thrown their lot in with IMO by blatantly and obviously to everyone doing something illegal, and then turning around and crying about it like they're the victims when they got BTFO for it. The moment you're disingenuous I'm no longer on your side, even if I myself was/am doing the same exact thing you were to begin with. Even if I myself don't like the other side either.
 
EmerilLIVE said:
What Internet Archive did is illegal. However, what is legal is not necessarily moral or ethical as what is illegal is not necessarily immoral or unethical. Copyright law is government protectionism in favor of copyright holders, for good or ill.
Click to expand...

Disagree.

You create something, you get to set the terms for how it is distributed, and how it can be used, and if anyone tries to stop you or regulatory you, they are the ones who are wrong. These property rights are supreme to all other rights, and intellectual property IS NOT Physical property, so the same rules do not apply. Their distribution is bound by license agreements and cannot be duplicated or even resold unless allowed by the rights-holder. I know they have regulated otherwise in Europe, and they are wrong.. It is European law which is unethical and immoral on this topic.

When you are sold video or music content or a video game you are not sold a physical good that changes hands. You are sold a license that allows you to use it, but only in such ways that the rights holder wants you to use it, as bound by the EULA.

This is non-negotiable in a free society. People can't just take what they want because they want it. That is the unethical/immoral bit in this conversation.

That said, I've been known to protest certain behaviors among rights-holders by circumventing their distribution methods, but I know full well I am in a grey zone when doing so. The key is that it is never because I don't want to pay for something. It is the other strings that they try to attach to the deal which are often unethical and immoral, and I allow myself to circumvent as a form of protest. For instance, requirements of sharing data.

I'll join the armed uprising over that one, based on my belief that any information describing a person is always the poverty of the person it described, and that cannot be traded away in any way shape or form, even in exchange for a "free service". I'd fight a full-on war over this one.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Disagree.

You create something, you get to set the terms for how it is distributed, and how it can be used, and if anyone tries to stop you or regulatory you, they are the ones who are wrong. These property rights are supreme to all other rights, and intellectual property IS NOT Physical property, so the same rules do not apply. Their distribution is bound by license agreements and cannot be duplicated or even resold unless allowed by the rights-holder. I know they have regulated otherwise in Europe, and they are wrong.. It is European law which is unethical and immoral on this topic.

When you are sold video or music content or a video game you are not sold a physical good that changes hands. You are sold a license that allows you to use it, but only in such ways that the rights holder wants you to use it, as bound by the EULA.

This is non-negotiable in a free society. People can't just take what they want because they want it. That is the unethical/immoral bit in this conversation.

That said, I've been known to protest certain behaviors among rights-holders by circumventing their distribution methods, but I know full well I am in a grey zone when doing so. The key is that it is never because I don't want to pay for something. It is the other strings that they try to attach to the deal which are often unethical and immoral, and I allow myself to circumvent as a form of protest. For instance, requirements of sharing data.

I'll join the armed uprising over that one, based on my belief that any information describing a person is always the poverty of the person it described, and that cannot be traded away in any way shape or form, even in exchange for a "free service". I'd fight a full-on war over this one.
Click to expand...
Your entire view on this topic hinges on the premise that you believe capitalism is all-supreme. The way I see it, capitalism (particularly USA's brand of capitalism) is a sanctioned way for the elite to exploit the poor, and the premise of EULA's are completely ridiculous. Defending any of that crap just seems like complete slave mentality, to me. I have no doubt that you actually believe it, though.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Disagree.

You create something, you get to set the terms for how it is distributed, and how it can be used, and if anyone tries to stop you or regulatory you, they are the ones who are wrong. These property rights are supreme to all other rights, and intellectual property IS NOT Physical property, so the same rules do not apply. Their distribution is bound by license agreements and cannot be duplicated or even resold unless allowed by the rights-holder. I know they have regulated otherwise in Europe, and they are wrong.. It is European law which is unethical and immoral on this topic.

When you are sold video or music content or a video game you are not sold a physical good that changes hands. You are sold a license that allows you to use it, but only in such ways that the rights holder wants you to use it, as bound by the EULA.

This is non-negotiable in a free society. People can't just take what they want because they want it. That is the unethical/immoral bit in this conversation.

That said, I've been known to protest certain behaviors among rights-holders by circumventing their distribution methods, but I know full well I am in a grey zone when doing so. The key is that it is never because I don't want to pay for something. It is the other strings that they try to attach to the deal which are often unethical and immoral, and I allow myself to circumvent as a form of protest. For instance, requirements of sharing data.

I'll join the armed uprising over that one, based on my belief that any information describing a person is always the poverty of the person it described, and that cannot be traded away in any way shape or form, even in exchange for a "free service". I'd fight a full-on war over this one.
Click to expand...
To even consider licensing agreements for intellectual property valid & legal contracts is a joke. Valid & legal contracts don't allow one side to alter them ex-post-facto by bribing a third party (the government).
 
Could this also be a case of some big powerful people and companies not wanting a history around of their past doings...good or bad...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top