Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive for Systematic Mass Scanning and Distribution of Literary Works (publishers.org) 97
Today, member companies of the Association of American Publishers (AAP) filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Internet Archive (IA) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit asks the Court to enjoin IA's mass scanning, public display, and distribution of entire literary works, which it offers to the public at large through global-facing businesses coined "Open Library" and "National Emergency Library," accessible at both openlibrary.org and archive.org. In a statement, the Association of American Publishers (AAP) wrote: IA has brazenly reproduced some 1.3 million bootleg scans of print books, including recent works, commercial fiction and non-fiction, thrillers, and children's books. The plaintiffs --Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, John Wiley & Sons and Penguin Random House -- publish many of the world's preeminent authors, including winners of the Pulitzer Prize, National Book Award, Newbery Medal, Man Booker Prize, Caldecott Medal and Nobel Prize. Despite the self-serving library branding of its operations, IA's conduct bears little resemblance to the trusted role that thousands of American libraries play within their communities and as participants in the lawful copyright marketplace. IA scans books from cover to cover, posts complete digital files to its website, and solicits users to access them for free by signing up for Internet Archive Accounts.
The sheer scale of IA's infringement described in the complaint -- and its stated objective to enlarge its illegal trove with abandon -- appear to make it one of the largest known book pirate sites in the world. IA publicly reports millions of dollars in revenue each year, including financial schemes that support its infringement design. In willfully ignoring the Copyright Act, IA conflates the separate markets and business models made possible by the statute's incentives and protections, robbing authors and publishers of their ability to control the manner and timing of communicating their works to the public. IA not only conflates print books and eBooks, it ignores the well-established channels in which publishers do business with bookstores, e-commerce platforms, and libraries, including for print and eBook lending. As detailed in the complaint, IA makes no investment in creating the literary works it distributes and appears to give no thought to the impact of its efforts on the quality and vitality of the authorship that fuels the marketplace of ideas.
The sheer scale of IA's infringement described in the complaint -- and its stated objective to enlarge its illegal trove with abandon -- appear to make it one of the largest known book pirate sites in the world. IA publicly reports millions of dollars in revenue each year, including financial schemes that support its infringement design. In willfully ignoring the Copyright Act, IA conflates the separate markets and business models made possible by the statute's incentives and protections, robbing authors and publishers of their ability to control the manner and timing of communicating their works to the public. IA not only conflates print books and eBooks, it ignores the well-established channels in which publishers do business with bookstores, e-commerce platforms, and libraries, including for print and eBook lending. As detailed in the complaint, IA makes no investment in creating the literary works it distributes and appears to give no thought to the impact of its efforts on the quality and vitality of the authorship that fuels the marketplace of ideas.
Google Books? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sounds like something similar...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Copyright (Score:5, Informative)
If there ever was anything about the word copyright that is unassailably obvious and indisputable is that a copy right conveys the right to refuse to allow copying of a work.
Um, no?
In many nations including the US, copyright protect distribution of a work, distributing derived works, as well as public performance and public display.
Copying itself is expressly permitted in many ways within the law. It's a case of the big print giving protections and the fine print taking it away. Copies can be made for many reasons even when the original author doesn't want copies made, including backups, preservation, everyday use by a legitimate owner [cornell.edu],
education uses, study, use in small groups, commentary [cornell.edu], copies made during transmission and storage [cornell.edu], temporary copies made for using it or for display, [cornell.edu]and more [cornell.edu].
So no, I disagree that it "is unassailably obvious and indisputable", as it is trivially shown false.
In this case the Internet Archive probably is exceeding what 17 USC 108 allows, but they could be brought back into compliance fairly easily, or license it away like Google did with Google Books.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Copying itself is expressly permitted in many ways within the law.
And expressly reserved only to the copyright holder in one honking great big way within the law:
[T]he owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords
All that other stuff you list are tiny exceptions to that, with lots of conditions as to when and whether they apply.
Re: (Score:2)
True, that's the big print. But as I wrote, what the big print gives the fine print takes away.
In practice, all the exceptions mean that only distribution of material gets lawsuits. Receiving copies and making your own copies that are never distributed are generally permitted practices.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it just flies under the radar. If you borrow a book from the library, scan it at home, and never tell anyone or share the scan, they'll just never know to come after you. (And it's not strategically worth it because of the head of the snake approach that is commonly used)
Doesn't change the legality, though.
Scanning is not copying (Score:1)
Re:Copyright (Score:4, Insightful)
"Indisputable" is not a word to be lightly applied to intellectual property law, which is full of odd corner cases and things that don't mean what they appear to mean. That is especially true in an *international* context. What is impermissible in the US may be permissible in the EU, particularly where libraries are concerned.
Re:Copyright (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Copyright (Score:4, Interesting)
If there ever was anything about the word copyright that is unassailably obvious and indisputable is that a copy right conveys the right to refuse to allow copying of a work.
In every part of life there's a balance in that to every right corresponds a proportional duty. Having the right to limit copying, without having a corresponding duty to make copies available, is thus a moral aberration. Reason therefore dictates the moment a copying rights holder refuses to make copies, to fulfill his duty, that right should end. Alas, laws aren't made to serve justice, but to serve rent seeking, and this is how we got this weird duty-free right.
Re: (Score:2)
Most authors who are contracted with the big publishing houses don't hold control of the copyright to their works. I asked an author that I liked if she could release some of her older books to the public domain since the publisher refused to reissue them. She said that she couldn't, since the publisher held control of the copyright. She was going to ask her lawyer if they could go to the public domain after her death, but since I never heard back the answer was probably negative.
Re: (Score:2)
She was going to ask her lawyer if they could go to the public domain after her death, but since I never heard back the answer was probably negative.
It can get worse than that. I read once about a philosopher who wrote on, among other things, spiritualist topics. When he died his copyright went to his widow, who then became a born-again Christian. Since many of the topics he wrote about went against her new faith, and she had the power to prevent the spread of what she now saw as blasphemy, that's exactly what she did, forbidding any new edition of her departed husband's life work. As a result, for decades anyone wanting to read anything he ever wrote h
Re: (Score:3)
If there ever was anything about the word copyright that is unassailably obvious and indisputable is that a copy right conveys the right to refuse to allow copying of a work.
Nah. Even among countries that have adopted the Berne Convention, permissible copying varies. For example, in some countries there is a compulsory license for certain applications, such as use of works in higher education settings. The user might have to pay some nominal fee to use the work, but the copyright holder can't deny them the use.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there any argument left to be made here?
All of U.S. Code title 17 section 108?
https://www.copyright.gov/titl... [copyright.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Looking up the IA's lending system, it sounds a lot like VidAngel - a shady video streaming service that used a very similar bit of creative legal interpretation to avoid having to pay any royalties. Rather than license the movie from the copyright holder, they just purchased a physical disc at retail. Then 'sell' that disc to the customer for $20 for the duration of the stream, and 'buy' it back at the end for $19, so all VidAngel claimed to be doing was letting the customer remotely access their own prope
Re: Google Books? (Score:1)
Vid angel (Score:4, Interesting)
I subscribd to vid angel when I had young kids. It was a really comforting service. But the really surprising thing was how tiny the edits could be and still work. just clipping a few seconds out of a whole movie could easily change the gore or sex or language level without changing any plot elements. I was genuinely surprised and started out skeptical.
It wasn't just about shielding my own kids but rather since kids often watch movies with other kids I could safely put something on and not have to worry about where my neighbors drew the line. it became a lot more comfortable to watch as a group. I really liked it. As my kids aged then it became not needed for me.
Until I had my own kids I didn't think I'd feel that way but then you do and you do. It was a great family service that was good for everyone.
It's not a lot different than what TV stations used to do except the edits were much finer grained and they had large ranges of tuning on what you really car about removing. So the slices could be really small and not the worst case scenario of some hack TV censor.
Vid angel explicitly legal (Score:1)
It was a travesty that Vid Angel ost the lawsuit when it appeared they were following the law and it's explicit intent.
The DMCA contails a specific exampltion called the family viewing act. it says that companies can modify works and sell that service for the purpose of making films more family freindly. It was an explicit authorization of the Vid Angel model. And Vid Angle did require you to edit the films as well.
THus even though what they did seemed like it should be illegal like similar services that
Re: (Score:2)
The editing wasn't the problem: It was format-shifting in order to pass off a rental as a sale-and-buyback. They Family Viewing Act exception didn't cover that part of the business.
I don't think it was really a deliberate scam. It was just that the only practical way to make their business viable was to skirt dangerously close to the edge of the law. They failed to negotiate streaming rights with any of the major studios, but without popular content the service was doomed to fail - so they tried to do an en
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Google Books? (Score:2, Insightful)
Sigh
We're not going to make it, are we?
Re: (Score:2)
The service wasn't the problem, it was the legal justification behind it that landed them in the courts. Whenever someone watched a film on VidAngel, the studio got a royalty payment of precisely squat. Would you expect them to take that lying down?
Re:Google Books? (Score:4, Interesting)
> Whenever someone watched a film on VidAngel, the studio got a royalty payment of precisely squat. Would you expect them to take that lying down?
Sounds like a library to me.
But, no, MPAA will always abuse the law to improve their profits and the legal system will enable them as long as they pay lots of lawyers lots of money. Lawyer-judges are fine with this.
Not close to google books (Score:4, Informative)
Google books only shows snippets of books for which the copyright holders assert their claim to. Not whole works unless copyright holder hasn't asserted their copyright.
Acronyms or is it initialism, I never know (Score:1)
"Association of American Publishers (AAP)"
GFY
Re:Acronyms or is it initialism, I never know (Score:4, Interesting)
The actual distinction is a bit annoying. An acronym is a pronounceable abbreviation, formed from the first letters or syllables of each word, like 'NASA' or 'Gestapo.' An initialism is a broader category, formed by the same process, that is not necessarily pronounceable, especially if you sound out each letter to verbalize it. 'AAP' is in the latter category.
Some terms bridge the gap, like when your manager says 'sequel' instead of 'SQL' to sound like she knows what she's talking about. Dammit, Melissa. They changed the name during development because it was already trademarked. Stop being a know-it-all!
Re: Acronyms or is it initialism, I never know (Score:2)
This is going to backfire. (Score:4, Interesting)
Internet archive is a rather popular organisation. If the AAP wins, they get the 'Internet Villain' badge - and then everyone hates them. This happens even if their case has merit.
I don't know if Internet Archive is violating copyright law or not. They don't just open allow free downloads of in-copyright works, but it's a complicated field and I have only a layperson understanding of it. I gather their ebook lending system is based around owning physical copies and treating the transmission as if it were a transfer of a physical object, which is at best a legal grey area. I do know that there are lots and lots of other sites that don't even pretend to be legal, because I get my supply of ebooks from them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
So you're saying people should be allowed to freely steal other people's work because . . .
Must be nice to give away other's people work. After all, why should they be compensated for their time and effort. I'm sure your boss feels the same way.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because they are right does not mean they will be liked for it.
Re:This is going to backfire. (Score:5, Interesting)
I've learned my lessons from the huge corporations and do as they do now: Steal as long as you don't get caught, pretend innocence when confronted and apologize when caught, weighting the risk vs the rewards just like they taught me.
They're far richer than me, and can afford to set a better example, and until they do I won't shed a single tear for their so called losses. Come back to me when they hold the moral high ground.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: This is going to backfire. (Score:2)
So you're saying people should be allowed to freely steal other people's work because . . . .?
Must be nice to give away other's people work. After all, why should they be compensated for their time and effort. I'm sure your boss feels the same way.
Art and media isn't created in a vacuum. There is some middle ground where the industry and society exchange something of value. The protections that copyright offers can't be a one way street for this to be equitable long term.
Some allowances for researching, review, commentary, citation, conversion, and archival already fall under fair use. The laws continue to evolve as technology and society changes, else we could have written the laws on stone tablets.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So you're saying people should be allowed to freely steal other people's work because . . . .?
So, how much do you pay yearly to the Catholic Church for using the Latin alphabet? You're not stealing all these carefully crafted, artistically designed, culturally meaningful glyphs, are you?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
^This. A lot of SFF writers are also pissed with IA over IA's lifting of restrictions since many of them retain copyright to their own works.
Basically ... artists (and other works creators like coders) get to set the terms for how their work gets distributed unless including giving up the rights to do so.* IA's method for removing works at the request of rights holders was pathetically (and possibly intentionally) incompetent. You can shout me down with cries "but information wants to be free" and "but cult
Re: (Score:2)
Writers and publishers were screeching that the Internet Archive is a bunch of pirates for years. Here's an article from 2017: The Internet Archive's OpenLibrary project violates copyright, the Authors Guild warns [teleread.org]
They just didn't sue until now because they knew they'd be laughed out of the courthouse.
Re: (Score:2)
They just didn't sue until now because they knew they'd be laughed out of the courthouse.
[citation needed]
It's not clear that format shifting is permissible under US copyright law, especially when one distributes the resulting copy instead of private use (the latter is a reasonable expansion of the right to time shift, as time shifting necessarily involves format shifting. The former has no basis in law I'm aware of).
I would suggest that publishers did not sue previously because the status quo was more tolerable than the possibility of losing, which would set the stage for future erosion of ri
Re: (Score:2)
It's not clear that format shifting is permissible under US copyright law
It may be permissible, but it entirely depends on the circumstances, and is handled in a case-by-case fashion. Ripping your CDs to your iPod so you can listen to them is probably safe. Ripping your CDs to a public server so that you and your friends (i.e. the Internet) can listen to them is probably not.
The facts here do not favor the Archive.
Re: (Score:2)
From the kick-em-while-they're-down department (Score:3, Interesting)
Thousands of libraries are currently closed due to the pandemic and the IA's library may be the only way for some of these people to get access to books. I know, let's sue them.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the only marginally-legal way.
Copyright vs Libraries (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Copyright vs Libraries (Score:4, Insightful)
The copyright industry, as a whole, tends to despise libraries in general. Rampant piracy isn't really distinguishable from just a global library
That's my thought. To publishers libraries have always been a tolerated legal loophole. They view every library patron as a potential lost sale. Towards that end they have made it difficult for libraries to keep up with the times and go to digital lending. This is ironic considering with modern DRM and other rights management tools, digital lending is easier and more efficient than ever.
I'm not familiar with IA's work or processes, but I could see this suit being a warning shot to other libraries and an effort to keep lending mostly in the analog realm.
Re:Copyright vs Libraries (Score:5, Insightful)
If public libraries had never been invented, and the first one was opened today, it would be instantly crushed behind a mountain of lawsuits. It would never be permitted to exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The free dissemination of ideas and the copying of such are what have allowed our technology to progress as rapidly as it has. That was the idea behind Copyright - to grant a temporary monopoly behind ideas so that the original author could profit from the work, but then have it
Re: (Score:2)
The copyright industry, as a whole, tends to despise libraries in general. Rampant piracy isn't really distinguishable from just a global library
That's my thought. To publishers libraries have always been a tolerated legal loophole. They view every library patron as a potential lost sale. Towards that end they have made it difficult for libraries to keep up with the times and go to digital lending. This is ironic considering with modern DRM and other rights management tools, digital lending is easier and more efficient than ever.
I'm not familiar with IA's work or processes, but I could see this suit being a warning shot to other libraries and an effort to keep lending mostly in the analog realm.
There are multiple legitimate digital lending apps, with different cost structures for the local library system. Check out Hoopla, Libby, and Overdrive for examples. I use all three.
Re: (Score:3)
The copyright industry, as a whole, tends to despise libraries in general. Rampant piracy isn't really distinguishable from just a global library
I don't think that's necessarily true. Libraries buy a lot of books. For popular titles my local library often buys 7-10 copies.
Electronic libraries may have a different dynamic. They are not tied to a geographic area, My library buying 7-10 copies serves my local county only. The next county over must buy their own copies, and across the country there are a lot of counties.
A digital library is not tied to a local county. It's not an issue if they are lending only the copies they buy. Once they start
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC publishers make libraries pay more for a digital copy than a dead-tree copy, and require frequent "license renewals" (essentially repurchasing the same book again and again).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No, you are wrong and libraries are nothing like "rampant piracy" [litreactor.com]
Good article. Thanks
Here we go again. (Score:5, Interesting)
Obviously the Internet Archive decided to bait out this lawsuit. Obviously their lawyers think they can prove they meet all the criteria for being a library.
IA not only conflates print books and eBooks, it ignores the well-established channels in which publishers do business with bookstores, e-commerce platforms, and libraries, including for print and eBook lending.
Obviously that is also intentional. Those "well-established" channels in which publishers extort absurd contracts of adhesion from e-commerce platforms and libraries using ridiculous terms of service are exactly why the Internet Archive refused to use them. Having not agreed to any onerous contract terms, the only thing which applies is plain old unadulterated copyright law.
IA did not "rob authors and publishers of their ability to control the manner and timing of communicating their works to the public." They did not sneak into publisher systems or author's home PCs and extract unpublished works and put them on the Internet. They bought published, printed works. At which point, publisher's rights (we know author's rights are irrelevant to these assholes) end. They sold the thing. They have no further claim to the thing. I'm betting the Internet Archive has a paper trail that shows they bought published, printed works on the secondary market, to be certain no onerous contract terms apply. It is still legal to sell a book you bought. It is still legal to buy a book from someone who is not the publisher. It is still legal to format shift. And it is still legal to lend copyrighted works, of all types. The case will most likely hinge on whether transmitting a format shifted work to a library patron constitutes making an unauthorized copy for the purposes of copyright law. IA thinks they can argue it doesn't.
The publishers are going to be very sad to learn that Disney's promise that they will own everything, always, forever and ever amen won't actually hold up because this time, the Internet Archive will be certain to have a lawyer smarter than 2003 Lawrence Lessig, who lost Eldred v. Ashcroft. 2020 Lawrence Lessig knows better how to argue a case before the Supreme Court. With any luck, IA will also be smart enough to hire Supreme Court specialists when the time comes. Assuming the appeals court doesn't just Sony v. Universal City Studios stomp the publishers. Presumably they won't because the publishers will argue that was only for timeshifting purposes, and there's nothing judges like better than narrow rulings, both issuing them and considering them.
Settle in, folks. We can look forward to 3-5 years of this nonsense. Pamela Jones, the book signal is shining in the clouds (it's like the Bat Signal, only it's the shape of a book). Where are you??
Re: (Score:2)
This is very dodgy legal ground. It sounds a lot like the shady business of VidAngel, the company I described in a post a bit further up the discussion. Really, there's no way to say who is going to win this one. Though if I were putting money on it, my money would be on the publishers.
The only certainty is that during and after this case, there will be plenty of other websites offering free ebooks without even pretending to follow the law.
Re: (Score:2)
They sold the thing. They have no further claim to the thing. I'm betting the Internet Archive has a paper trail that shows they bought published, printed works on the secondary market, to be certain no onerous contract terms apply. It is still legal to sell a book you bought. It is still legal to buy a book from someone who is not the publisher. It is still legal to format shift. And it is still legal to lend copyrighted works, of all types.
It's not legal to buy one copy of a book and then run off unlimited copies for sale or loan. It says so right in the front of the book.
It's not legal to buy a dvd and sell copies or run showings in a public place.
It's not legal to buy a copy of a popular broadway play recording then put on public performances of it without a license, even at the high school level. This is how you can buy a license to perform the Les Mis school edition: https://www.mtishows.com/les-m... [mtishows.com]
IA can give away or sell the books t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The book was, yes, but the musical was written in 1980. I suppose you could write your own play or musical based on the book, so long as you made your own songs. Audiences might not really appreciate that though.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not legal to buy one copy of a book and then run off unlimited copies for sale or loan. It says so right in the front of the book.
That's nice. I guess it's a good thing that's not what IA is doing, isn't it? 'cause they're not.
To read a currently copyrighted work at IA, you have to log in and sign out the book. It's a limited 14 day signout period, and there are not unlimited copies being lent. I went and looked myself just now. They're behaving exactly as my local public library does, except they are offering anything they like from their own catalog of scans rather than the limited catalog of ebook editions my local library is
Re: (Score:2)
It's not legal to buy one copy of a book and then run off unlimited copies for sale or loan. It says so right in the front of the book.
That's nice. I guess it's a good thing that's not what IA is doing, isn't it? 'cause they're not.
To read a currently copyrighted work at IA, you have to log in and sign out the book. It's a limited 14 day signout period, and there are not unlimited copies being lent. I went and looked myself just now. They're behaving exactly as my local public library does, except they are offering anything they like from their own catalog of scans rather than the limited catalog of ebook editions my local library is allowed to have by the publisher.
I'd say they have an extremely solid case.
It's not what they were doing when they decided to open the "National Emergency Library"
From https://www.npr.org/sections/c... [npr.org]
"The nonprofit group, which has made some 4 million books available online for free, says that it is suspending waitlists for the 1.4 million works in its lending library. The move expedites the borrowing process through the end of June ("or the end of the US national emergency, whichever is later") for anybody worldwide who'd like one of those books — be they students, teacher
Re: (Score:3)
That's nice. I guess it's a good thing that's not what IA is doing, isn't it? 'cause they're not.
No, it absolutely is what they are doing, and here is their justification for it [archive.org].
Please note, I am absolutely in favor of digital lending, when "digital lending" consists of a digital copy that has replaced a (legal) physical copy that is in the possession of one person at a time. Format shifting in this way is absolutely within the spirit of copyright law, even if it may be a bit dodgy by the letter of the law. But that's not what the Archive is doing--they're lending unlimited copies, because they have
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you, sincerely, for saying this here.
Re: (Score:3)
> Giving away or selling more copies than they own is called stealing.
You keep using that word stealing. I do not think it means what you think it means.
1. Stealing is the act of taking a PHYSICAL possession. e.g. When you steal an item the original owner no longer has access to it.
Copying a digital file without the author's permission is called copyright infringement. The original owner STILL has access to it.
Stop trying to hijack existing definitions.
2. The IA is NOT giving anything away. They are tem
Re: (Score:2)
Stop trying to hijack existing definitions.
You too, please.
2. The IA is NOT giving anything away. They are temporary loaning out a digital copy of the book for a limited time. They specifically mention what happens:
The definition of a copy, in copyright law, can be found at 17 USC 101. It very clearly only applies to tangible objects. A flash drive can be a digital copy. A file transmitted over the Internet cannot be one for copyright purposes, even though the word in the vernacular is 'copy.'
Further, lending in copyright law, involves the transfer of possession of a copy, i.e. of a tangible object. Uploading and downloading files, OTOH, is copying; it is the making of a new copy of the work at the
Re: (Score:3)
>> Stop trying to hijack existing definitions.
> You too, please.
[[Citation]]
WHY do you think there is a DIFFERENT term used???
Because Copyright Infringement is NOT the same as Stealing.
The word "steal" does NOT appear in the USC definition [cornell.edu] AT ALL.
Your fallacy is trying to apply the same laws to digital items as physical objects.
> all you're really doing is moving it and then deleting the original.
1. In order to LOAN someone a digital file you MUST make a copy. It is IMPOSSIBLE to give someone t
Re: (Score:2)
Ugh, facepalm.
Dude, I've been bitching about copyright law around here for 20-something years. You don't need to lecture me about how it isn't achieving the public benefits that it should, that infringement isn't the same as stealing, etc. But I also don't want to be deluded about the state of the law at present, and you shouldn't be either.
1. In order to LOAN someone a digital file you MUST make a copy. It is IMPOSSIBLE to give someone the "original" bits -- they are LOST the instant you "save" it from RAM to a storage device.
Copying-and-Deleting has the EXACT same effect at the end of the day of loaning out a physical object.
And no one cares. A court will hold that to be infringing as copying and distribution. It will not fall within the first sale exception at 17 USC 109 which is what permi
Re: (Score:2)
"They did not sneak into publisher systems or author's home PCs and extract unpublished works and put them on the Internet. They bought published, printed works. At which point, publisher's rights (we know author's rights are irrelevant to these assholes) end."
This is a completely specious argument. Buying a single copy of a printed work does NOT give you or anyone the right to make and distribute an arbitrary number of copies of it.
Speaking as a writer, and hopefully an author someday, I can tell you with
Re: (Score:2)
It is still legal to format shift.
It has never been legal to format shift just any old time. It is only legal under certain specific circumstances, as determined on a case by case basis.
This is because fair use is entirely fact dependent, and the exact same use, while fair under one set of circumstances, may be unfair under another set of circumstances.
Additionally, it is not legal to lend copyrighted works without permission. It is only legal to lend copies of copyrighted works*. You may think that that's no problem, except the law specif
IA backup (Score:2)
Some places have been backing up the Internet Archive as best they can. If you strike the IA down, it will just spawn new heads.
Yeah (Score:2)
But a lot of works would forever be lost had it not been for "OMG! Piracy!".
The copyright system is broken, at least in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, the work is supposed to en eter the public domain once the copyright term expires.
With DRM there is not even the pretense that the work will ever make it into the public domain.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that when the copyright on Steamboat Willie is about to expire, Disney will buy another extension.
Re: (Score:2)
As of early 2018, movie studios were not interested in another copyright term extension, and the Authors Guild pledged to fight another extension. (Source: "Why Mickey Mouse’s 1998 copyright extension probably won’t happen again" by Timothy B. Lee [arstechnica.com])
Re: Yeah (Score:1)
AAP will need to change the Copyright Law to win (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
From your own link:
to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work
They are not creating one copy, they are creating multiple copies. Libraries buy multiple copies of a single book and can only lend out those copies. [litreactor.com] They can't buy a single book, make an infinite number of copies and give those copies away which is what the IA is doing.
copy, made from the collection of a library or archives
In order to be part of the collection, they must have purchased the book for the purpose of l
Not surprised. (Score:2)
Just corp whining because (Score:1)
Now they can not figure out how to get back in the middle so they get their cut for not doing what they pretended to do in the past.
If today's copyright laws purchased from their owned congress critters treated the public domain fairly I would obey.
Now screw the publishers! best they and their dead tree monopoly publishing goes the way of buggy whips!
Just my 2 cents
This reminds me of something.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's much too rational for US corporate-written lobbyist laws.
Money is God here, what's best for people is an afterthought at best.
All So Investors Grandkids Will Never Have to Work (Score:3)
Re:All So Investors Grandkids Will Never Have to W (Score:4, Insightful)
Current copyright today extends the length out longer and longer because corp owners never die like a producer of the works and their immediate family.
Corporations pay to have decades added to their monopoly by just buying the correct number of congress critters. And poof you have things never going in to public domain.
Just my 2 cents
Re: (Score:2)
oldgraybeard observed:
Corporations pay to have decades added to their monopoly by just buying the correct number of congress critters. And poof you have things never going in to public domain.
Oh, there's no need to go to that expense, when all you have to do is persuade a sufficient number of trade representatives to add another global copyright term extension to the next international treaty they negotiate, and you get to profit for X more years in every country that's a signatory to the treaty.
For which, see the Berne Convention [wikipedia.org] in all its current glory ...
(Posted anonymously only so as not to undo positive mods to previous comments on this story.)
--
Check out my novel [amazon.com].
Re: (Score:1)
Even books that aren't under copyright aren't available to readers. Google planned to do this but gave up and settled a suit with the AAP to only show a random 20% sample of out of copyright works. There is a book I would like to read that had one edition in 1935. It's a nonfiction book who information was rendered obselete by a develops after the war. It's of only historical interest. The publishers are making nothing out of restricting access. What they have done is ensure that beaten up 2nd copies of a
I donate to Internet Archive/Archive.org (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Imo what they are doing is the legal equivalent of accepting donations of books, and then mailing them out to people who want to borrow them. They eventually get the book back, and then they can mail it out to whoever else might want it mailed to them.
But instead of mailing the book, they "transport" the book to a borrower by way of scanning it first, and then using the internet to do the transporting. Who could object to using a transporter to share a book?
What's key here is that they only loan out what they were given on a one to one basis. If they have two physical hardcover Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy books, then only two people can have borrowed it. Other people have to wait for one of them to be "returned", or for for the lending period to expire. You read them online, so there's no cheating except by illegal copying, which could be done without Internet Archive anyway.
P.S. If you haven't read The Stars My Destination, and/or The Demolished Man, turn in your nerd card, and you can't call yourself a total fanatic in regards the cyberpunk genre, or the TV show Babylon 5. :) Just kidding! But here's an opportunity to read them.
https://archive.org/search.php... [archive.org]
https://archive.org/search.php... [archive.org]
They decided that during the "national emergency" it was okay to loan out unlimited copies.
I bet they wouldn't have done it if they had to pay for each one
robots.txt (Score:2)
Is this another organisation being deliberately blind to the fact that IA honour robots.txt [archive.org] (even to the point where they'll delete archives from when there wasn't an applicable robots.txt, but is now.) And has done for quite a while [archive.org]
copyright is heavily tied to physical media (Score:2)
The whole story of the ability to hold a copyright is that it's only bound to your text, music, computer program, or whatever... by physical media. Basically, you can enforce copyright law by going after large-scale operations that are stealing your ideas for profit. In theory, you have a right to be protected for your original(ish) work. In practice, the only way it's possible to enforce that is because the work was exactly bound to physical media.
It was a paperback, record, CD, DVD, stack of floppy disks.
this is ... (Score:2)
... fucking disgusting. if we as society allow this to be taken down then we just don't deserve it. give it all to the piranhas and fuck culture ...