Internet Archive Digital Lending Isn't Fair Use, 2nd Cir. Says (bloomberglaw.com) 120
Internet Archive's "controlled digital lending" system and removal of controls during the pandemic don't qualify as fair use, the Second Circuit affirmed Wednesday. Bloomberg Law:
Four major book publishers again thwarted the online repository's defense that its one-to-one lending practices mirrored those of traditional libraries, this time at the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Copying books in their entirety isn't transformative, and lending them for free competes with the publishers own book and ebook offerings, the unanimous panel said. Internet Archive said in a statement: We are disappointed in today's opinion about the Internet Archive's digital lending of books that are available electronically elsewhere. We are reviewing the court's opinion and will continue to defend the rights of libraries to own, lend, and preserve books. Further reading: Full-text of court opinion [PDF].
Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
The court is stupid. If these morons held the reins of power 250+ years ago, we'd have had no libraries. Libraries were essential to Western civilization. Not everyone can afford to purchase a book. If you really liked a book, you'd buy it. That system worked to reward authors sufficiently in the past, why not now?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The court said that the Internet Archive use of the work was not fair use according to the criteria for fair use written in the copyright act.. That seems to be legally accurate.
Internet Archive's argument basically would have pretty much destroyed the existence of copyright. Maybe "information wants to be free," but authors want to be paid.
Re:Bullshit (Score:4, Informative)
No surprises on this ruling, and SCOTUS will very likely agree (and will likely get the chance to).
For those who don't like it, the solution is to write your congresscritter. And campaign against them when they ignore you, which they likely will. And so on.
If you can't replace them, then, well, welcome to democracy. You're in the minority.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No surprises on this ruling, and SCOTUS will very likely agree
Good.
(and will likely get the chance to). For those who don't like it, the solution is to write your congresscritter.
For those who don't think wrtiers should be paid, write your congresscritters and tell them. Or, better yet, don't.
Re:Bullshit (Score:4, Interesting)
Not technically correct. While 17 USC 107 says the court should consider "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes," the court has concluded that whether a work is "transformative" is a key consideration. That word is not present in the statutory section.
I think it's the wrong lesson from Google Books. Yes, the inclusion of a searchable text database was transformative, and that transformative nature was crucial to the outcome, but it avoids the ancillary question from that case and the central one here: can I make an electronic copy of my legitimate print publication as long as I treat that electronic copy in a way indistiguishable from the original to the publisher? If we focus on that question, it'll lead to followups like whether the lender's avoided payment to third-party shippers matters to the market for the work, or whether by eliminating shipping time, you've allowed more people to read the existing copies and thereby reduced sales. Would we come to the same conclusion if IA limited their lending to include 4-day blackouts between a lending request and its return? Note that these are questions pertaining to the 4th market-effect factor rather than the 1st use factor and its purely judicial "transformative" prong of analysis.
Re: (Score:3)
Current copyright needs to be destroyed because its fucking awful and it doesn't actually favor authors in any way. It favors shitty publishers who don't do any real work and aren't necessary in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
But the original statement I was replying to, "the court is stupid," was uninformed, because the court interpreted copyright law according to the way it is written; it's not their place to say "we don't like that law".
Re: (Score:2)
authors want to be paid.
They do. It's just they get paid for writing a book.
Paid once. For the original manuscript.
Royalties [Re:Bullshit] (Score:2)
authors want to be paid.
They do. It's just they get paid for writing a book. Paid once. For the original manuscript.
Since you don't even know that royalties exist, why the heck are you even commenting on a subject you're don't know anything about?
Re: (Score:2)
Since you don't even know
Yeah, I "don't even know", which I why I said what I said. Poor, dumb me.
Is it just me, or does it look like this site is becoming increasingly filled with functional illiterates?
Re: (Score:2)
Since you don't even know
Yeah, I "don't even know", which I why I said what I said. Poor, dumb me.
Correct on all counts. You don't even know, you said what you said, and you are dumb.
DO you know how royalties work?
Re: (Score:2)
DO you know how royalties work?
Yes.
Now that we cleared this, go back and re-read what I wrote.
Re: (Score:2)
DO you know how royalties work?
Yes. Now that we cleared this, go back and re-read what I wrote.
OK. What you wrote was "It's just they [authors] get paid for writing a book. Paid once. For the original manuscript."
No. Authors do not get "paid once. For the original manuscript." They get paid royalties on sales of books.
This is the third time you've asserted you know how royalties work, without a single word in any of these posts suggesting that you do know how royalties work.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Authors do not get "paid once. For the original manuscript." They get paid royalties on sales of books.
Okay, let me rewrite, in the form of a syllogism:
Major: Writing a book is a service a book writer provides once.
Minor: It is unjust for some to be paid only once for having once provided a service, while others are paid repeatedly, continuously, for having once provided a service.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is just that a book writer be paid once for their once-provided service of writing a book.
Corollary 1: It is unjust that copyright law grants writers the right, not afforded to, say, plumbers, to be paid r
Re: (Score:2)
Different topics.
Re: (Score:2)
~ shrugs ~
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, on the other hand I've downloaded a dozen pdf's from these guys over time and never even had to create an account let alone return anything. Nothing has ever even suggested I should.
Re:Bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
The Internet Archive has an issue with books. If they scan them themselves the books go into the lending system with DRM, and you can't just download a PDF. But if someone scans a book and uploads it, anyone can download it, no account needed, no DRM.
Same goes for music. If IA rip the disc, only samples are available. If someone uploads their own rip, anyone can download it.
It's massive copyright infringement. They won't even go to the effort of adding a check box for uploaders that says "this item needs restrictions due to copyright".
Re: (Score:2)
"And liability generally lies with the user engaging in piracy (you) moreso than the platform that has enabled it."
This is false. Copyright infringement is the act of unlawfully copying and distributing, not downloading, content. If this were a carrier platform hosting P2P content there would be a better argument [one torrent sites and the like have lost already btw] but that is not the case. This is a central organization sharing out its content intentionally.
Re: (Score:2)
This is false. Copyright infringement is the act of unlawfully copying and distributing, not downloading, content.
That is false. Downloading is copying. There's been no dispute about that for at least about 20 years. Just because it's often more efficient for copyright holders to go after pirate sites and platforms, that doesn't mean they can't go after individuals who merely download illegally.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, when you download, a copy is made by the sender and then streamed across the network.
"Just because it's often more efficient for copyright holders to go after pirate sites and platforms, that doesn't mean they can't go after individuals who merely download illegally."
This is a false equivalence. It is a copyright violation to retain a bootleg copy of media but only a civil infraction whereas copying and distributing is a federal crime. Further it isn't just harder to 'go after' individuals because ther
Re: Bullshit (Score:2)
Yes, when you download, a copy is made by the sender and then streamed across the network.
No. Remember, a "copy" is defined in 17 USC 101 as a material object, containing the intangible work. Much as the 3D printing folks would love to be able to download material objects, they just won't fit in an Ethernet cord, much less a WiFi signal.
When you download, you, the downloader, are fixing the work into your computer's storage device. That device -- usually a hard drive or SSD -- is the copy, and the downloader is the one responsible. (Leaving it on a RAM disk wouldn't help; then the RAM is the cop
Re: (Score:2)
"This was all gone into"
No, it wasn't. You are presenting RIAA interpretations that were used to strongarm grandmothers into settlements as if it faced any sort of real scrutiny in court. It didn't and the only reason nobody has addressed these matters in 20yrs is the courts began to slap back and make clear they'd tolerate these kind of suits about as well as patent trolling. That's why we don't see them anymore.
Also, you seem to have shifted goal posts from the original contention that penalties are weigh
Re: (Score:2)
No, it wasn't. You are presenting RIAA interpretations that were used to strongarm grandmothers into settlements as if it faced any sort of real scrutiny in court. It didn't and the only reason nobody has addressed these matters in 20yrs is the courts began to slap back and make clear they'd tolerate these kind of suits about as well as patent trolling. That's why we don't see them anymore.
I would suggest that the iTunes Music Store and music and video streaming services are why you don't see much of this any more. Not only was it a bad look, and expensive (Joe Sixpack pirates are not going to be able to pay much, however big the judgment is), and not effective at stopping piracy, but it turns out that the best way to reduce piracy is to provide inexpensive alternatives since piracy is largely the result of market conditions.
Anyway, no need to take my word for this; here's an actual circuit
Re:Bullshit (Score:4, Interesting)
But the clue of the story is the same: Whatever "first-sale doctrine" rights you have, they only exist in the physical realm.
It's also the reason I am sad RedBox went down (which btw happened because of incompetence not related to the rental kiosks), because now the studios can dictate their terms to the streaming services without any competition from physical rentals.
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Weird, I've only encountered them in search results and nothing made me sign in or check anything out. You could just download a copy in whatever formats they had available and most material was definitely copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't intentionally use it all. I'd just search for a book and an archive.org result was usually in the results. This is especially true for text book type materials. Here is an example I downloaded in the past.
This is one of the most popular biology texts and referenced by many courses on biohacking. Another book I know I referenced in the past currently shows the "unavailable to borrow" notice. Both are wonderful examples of why copyright holders are idiots BTW as I now own print copies of both texts.
h [archive.org]
Re:Bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
They shouldn't have to purchase "the right to redistribute digital copies" any more than a library should have to purchase a right to distribute physical copies.
Re: (Score:2)
When I had you a physical copy, you've got my copy. When I hand you a digital copy I have to make a new copy to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIK, that'd be considered a broadcasting of a copyrighted work, which requires a license. As in, your computer is showing you a photo (or set of photos, aka, a video) of the page, not the page itself. That photo-set is a copy of the original, even if it's destroyed immediately after it's made. And copyright is the right to control copying -- all copying.
Re: (Score:2)
Just so. Moreover, with an edge case for 'moving' a file within the same filesystem [in which case the data is left in place and pointers to it get updated instead] when you move or transfer data inside a computer that data is ALWAYS read and copied. If you 'moved' the data it simply deletes the original after copying it.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, lets replace our book shelves with a couple folders and the book with a letter. With a traditional library loan I pick up the letter from the library folder and place it in my folder. Afterward, I return the letter. Nothing was copied.
Now, lets make the letter digital. This means instead of a letter, we have a piece of paper (memory) with a number written on it that encodes all the data of the letter [textual/visual, doesn't matter]. Now, if they gave me the memory when I borrowed the book it would es
Re: (Score:2)
No, he's quite right. Copyright includes the right to make new copies (a copy is when a work is embodied in a tangible medium for more than a brief moment, basically, so downloaded into a hard drive, for example), to distribute copies (which uploading technically isn't but it always gets treated that way), and publicly performing or displaying works (which includes when even just one member of the public looks at or watches a work remotely).
They were really obviously infringing, and I don't know why they th
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you have to make a copy to view a digital file? They served images of the books, not downloads.
Your computer isn't opening a magical portal to the server to show you that image. It's downloading the image (ie, making a copy) and rendering it on your screen.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, what if the library purchased two copies and destroyed one, now they have the right to own two copies. Would that meet you pedantic requirement?
Re: (Score:2)
No. Copies are not fungible. Each copy is unique and the right to own that copy doesn't transfer to others except for a single copy made from your own copy that you've retained for backup purposes.
Re: (Score:2)
Practically anywhere there's an electrical interconnect, at least three copies exist. (I.e. At least one on the source chip, at least one on the bus between the chips, and at least one in the dest
Re: (Score:2)
TL;DR: You commit grand copyright infringement just by existing at this point.
If I buy an eBook and then make a bunch of copies of it (as you describe will necessarily happen) for my own personal use case of reading it on my eReader, is the use commercial in nature? Does it affect the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work? No on both counts and so such use would generally be considered Fair Use.
That's assuming you even need to consider Fair Use, as your license for the eBook probably gives you that express permission.
Re: (Score:2)
yes but that is not how the law is sold.
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
The other thing you left out is that, when libraries provide access to e-books, each digital copy of the book has a set number of uses before it expires. For example, they may purchase the rights to loan out one copy of Harry Potter, and they can loan that out a total of 20 times before their copy expires.
What they did not purchase is the right to redistribute digital copies.
Yet, they don't need to purchase that right when buying physical books. Why is this artificial limitation in place? (I know why, but it doesn't mirror physical book lending, no matter how much we try to shoehorn it in there)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>> What they did not purchase is the right to redistribute digital copies.
Well, no -- a "digital copy" not "copies" because it was a 1:1 ratio.
Copyright does not allow you to make a copy of a book (or any copyrighted material) without permission. The exception is "fair use," which is defined in copyright law. The court ruled that the application by Internet Archive did not fit the definition of fair use, and therefore was copyright violation.
At issue -- why should this be a separate "right" that must be purchased?
Because copyright does not allow you to make a copy of a book (or any copyrighted material) without permission.
Re:Bullshit (Score:4, Interesting)
They don't need to purchase rights to redistribute. If I own a physical copy of the book, I can lend it to anyone I want for any reason through any form of media.
I hope everyone involved in the Second Circuit spontaneously combusts along with every publisher in the world. They provide no value to society.
Re: (Score:2)
The exception is if making the copy falls under the category of fair use. Therefore, the court was given the question, is making a copy and lending it out "fair use"? Their decision, based on copyright law, was that it did not meet the criteria for fair use.
Good decision.
It's 100% fair use, since they only lent out as many digital copies as they had physical (while also not lending out the physical). It's literally no different than a library, other than not having any real physical location. The judge is a complete moron and her opinions fundamentally false. Everyone got paid exactly the same as they would have otherwise. People who use libraries, the Internet Archive lending, or just straight up pirate, were NEVER going to be the paying customers for those products. I mea
Definition of fair use [Re:Definition of copyright (Score:2)
The exception is if making the copy falls under the category of fair use. Therefore, the court was given the question, is making a copy and lending it out "fair use"? Their decision, based on copyright law, was that it did not meet the criteria for fair use. Good decision.
It's 100% fair use, since they only lent out as many digital copies as they had physical (while also not lending out the physical).
Except that is not how the copyright law defines "fair use". It may be something you personally think should be "fair," but your opinion is not relevant to the legal definition of fair use.
It's literally no different than a library,
You do not know the meaning of the word "literally". No, libraries do not make copies of books and lend out the copies.
I mean, ok, how about the Internet Archive just purchases a digital version and then lends that out? Problem solved, right?
Assuming that they agree to the terms of service, correct. And that is literally what libraries do.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that is not how the copyright law defines "fair use". It may be something you personally think should be "fair," but your opinion is not relevant to the legal definition of fair use.
Copyright law isn't good at defining anything to begin with, which is half the problem. It's not really copying to begin with.
You do not know the meaning of the word "literally". No, libraries do not make copies of books and lend out the copies.
Yes, that is actually LITERALLY what libraries were doing! It's called Controlled Digital Lending. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Holy fuck. Now maybe less will do it, but I hope they continue to do it anyway. Fuck all these people.
Assuming that they agree to the terms of service, correct. And that is literally what libraries do.
If there are terms of service, they aren't purchasing copies of the ebooks, they paying to rent the ebooks. Libraries don't pay to rent real books, why
Re: (Score:2)
Except that is not how the copyright law defines "fair use". It may be something you personally think should be "fair," but your opinion is not relevant to the legal definition of fair use.
Copyright law isn't good at defining anything to begin with, which is half the problem.
Your argument "Their decision is wrong because I don't like the way copyright law is written" fails.
It's not really copying to begin with.
It is literally copying.
...If there are terms of service, they aren't purchasing copies of the ebooks, they paying to rent the ebooks. Libraries don't pay to rent real books,
Irrelevant. Publishers are allowed to sell or rent or lease or license. Don't like the terms of service? don't buy or rent.
why should they be paying to rent ebooks? It doesn't make any sense. It's a fucked up system by fucked up people.
Irrelevant. This is a question of what does copyright law say? "Why do this" is not the question..
Hence the CDL system above. It makes sense. Everyone gets paid. Everything works like it did before computers. Is it possible to still create an illegal copy of the digital version when borrowed? Sure. Just like I can illegally physically copy a real book from the library. It still takes time, effort, or skills most people don't have, nor is it worth going after them - it actively makes them lose more money. And even if IA did manage to actually own a digital version of a book the same as a physical version, all of these people would STILL have a problem with it. These people are literally incapable of seeing bigger picture and would rather hyperfocus on being as stupid as they possibly can be.
Not sure what your point is here. Copyright law says permission is needed to make copies. The court addressed the question is this fair use according to the legal defi
Re: (Score:2)
It is literally copying.
No. It's not. It's the same as archiving - also allowed under law. When I make an archival copy of anything, I do not now have two copies to use, sell, lend, or whatever despite the word copy being used. I still only have one. One copy stored in two different mediums, but still only one copy. However, if one is damaged in a fire, hardware failure, or something, I can "restore" it from the other. Very helpful, very smart, very legal idea to make archives, also known as backups. It doesn't matter which one ge
Re: (Score:2)
It is literally copying.
No. It's not. It's the same as archiving - also allowed under law. When I make a (archival) copy of anything, I do not now have two copies
Uh, when you make an archival copy, you are literally making a copy. That's the meaning of the word "copying."
Your arguments are getting increasingly odd, and now that you've moved toward Humpty-Dumpty logic (“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less”), I think I'm leaving now.
Bye
Re: (Score:2)
Illegal copying, i.e. piracy, means I take one copy and make a second. I now either claim to have (aka own) two copies or claim to have my own while returning the original. And that never happened here. Hence, not the same kind of copying you keep referring to. Not all forms of "copying" are the same. Nor does it always mean the same thing.
Good. Leave. You know absolutely fucking nothing.
Re: (Score:3)
What, for making an interpretation of copyright law-- which is their job-- in a way you don't like.
Because libraries, and book copying by libraries, are the several millennia old, ancient tradition that these novel, barely 300 years old, "right to copy" laws subverted and keep trying to subvert even more as time passes. Such laws are illegitimate and deeply immoral, though as with any other immoral and illegitimate law, enforceable by those with the power to enforce them.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure exactly what you think you're saying, but it seems to summarize to "well, maybe the legal decision was correct as to copyright law, but I think copyright law itself is illegitimate and deeply immoral."
So, a generic "information wants to be free, and no, authors shouldn't expect to be paid" rant.
Whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
So, a generic
If it were that, I'd have said so. Whereas what you did was a quadruple fallacy, combining: a straw man, a slippery slope, a reductio ad absurdum, and a non sequitur.
"Whatever" indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
Does not change the fact that you made a generic rant that you don't like copyright law, you think anybody should be able to copy anything, and if authors expect to be paid, tough luck to them.
Says nothing about the fact that the decision was correct according to copyright law.
Re: (Score:2)
the fact
LOL!
generic rant
Yeah, "generic" and "rant", sure.
if authors expect to be paid, tough luck to them.
What is it that I mentioned before? Something about straw man, slippery slope, reductio ad absurdum, and non sequitur?
Learn to read.
Re: (Score:2)
So, you have not actual solution to the problem, for you it's just "if authors don't get paid for their work, tough luck for them."
Re: (Score:2)
you have not actual solution to the problem
For as long as you keep ass-you-me-ing, I'll keep mocking.
The moment you start asking, I'll start answering.
Re: (Score:2)
you have not actual solution to the problem
The moment you start asking, I'll start answering.
OK. What is your solution to the problem?
Re: (Score:2)
What is your solution to the problem?
Taxes-based public financing of the arts plus private patronage.
Copyright exists to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Public financing would do it fine. Patronage would do it fine. Both together would do it better than either alone. Those two suffice. Additional benefits: reducing the size of the State (no copyright enforcement bureaucracy), empowering private property (additional freedoms to use their printers, Internet connections, media storage etc.), and removing restrictions on free sp
Government subsidy [Re:Definition of copyright...] (Score:2)
What is your solution to the problem?
Taxes-based public financing of the arts plus private patronage. Copyright exists to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Public financing would do it fine. Patronage would do it fine. Both together would do it better than either alone. Those two suffice.
Interesting. Not sure it's a workable plan, but at least it's a plan.
Additional benefits: reducing the size of the State
Yow, no. You're proposing a NEW bureaucracy to give away money, and to decide who is an author/artist/songwriter and who isn't, and how much each author/artist/songwriter is worth subsidizing for. You will be vastly expanding the power of the state.
(no copyright enforcement bureaucracy)
You have a highly inflated view of what portion of the government is devoted to copyright enforcement. Removing copyright wouldn't shrink the size of government enough to measure.
...That'd also equal creatives on the same footing. Someone who paints a wall all white is no less a painter than someone who paints a mural.
Wait, what????
Re: (Score:2)
You will be vastly expanding the power of the state.
That'd be the case if that support was top-down. I strongly favor localism. Those decisions, for public financing, could be made at the local level for most everything, and financed by a set percentage of a Georgist single tax system.
Removing copyright wouldn't shrink the size of government enough to measure.
Maybe not. I couldn't find figures on how much is spent on this in the budget, so you may be right on that front. What I'd argue is that there's a strong cost on society due to enforcement, with a lot of wealth removed due to it, but that'd be moving the goal post, so I stand c
Re: (Score:2)
You will be vastly expanding the power of the state.
That'd be the case if that support was top-down. I strongly favor localism. Those decisions, for public financing, could be made at the local level for most everything,
LOL. Turns out that turning one expensive bureaucracy into a thousand local expensive bureaucracies doesn't reduce the size or expense of government.
But turns out it would, because in the end every single one of those local governments would decide "well, we have to cut the budget, what can we cut? Funding for the arts, that was easy."
So, you end up taking away writers' and artists' ability to profit for their work, and replace it with nothing. Smooth move.
and financed by a set percentage of a Georgist single tax system.
Oh, and we can't implement your utopia until we reform tax law? Great. That will be easy; we've only been trying for a few hundred years.
Basically, proposing nothing workable. Got it.
Re: (Score:2)
because in the end every single one
Slippery slope. As I mentioned, this worked for thousands of years before England decided to invent copyright in 1710. So, no.
your utopia
Utopias are imaginary things, never tried, that probably won't work.
Again: thousands of years, of working.
A fundamental conservative principle, which modern "conservatives" seem Hell-bent on pretending isn't, is that everything that once functioned is implementable and will function exactly as it did back then. Everything, not merely the progressiveness of yesteryear that "conservati
Re: (Score:2)
your utopia
Utopias are imaginary things, never tried, that probably won't work.
Got it in one.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, the right to lend a hard copy of a book only applies if the copy was made lawfully; you cannot lend or sell copies that were made illegally.
It was the correct decision under the law though we are saddled with lousy policy and lousy statutes.
Re:Bullshit (Score:4, Informative)
Library as a place to find a book has been essential, yes. Library as a place to get a book without paying for it has not.
And that's the main flaw of your argument.
RTFA. They did purchase the books. And they took care of the upkeep and infrastructure already.
But the books themselves still require a lot of time and effort to create — with some of the creators rightly expecting compensation...
Where were you when all the small book stores got forced out? Under this system, the creators should be getting compensation from the purchase of the physical books that IA is scanning and loaning out. They generally don't get much of the cut, but that problem is up the chain.
We've had these debates about videos, photographs, and music (remember Napster?), and your side always lost it. That you keep coming back — aaaa, the best things in life are free!!! — is quite annoying. Please, stop.
Fuck off. Who are you to tell society to stop its continual evolution? Those debates weren't so clear cut and they did move the needle (when is the last time you saw DRM in an mp3 you bought?). Copyright is not a natural law; There is nothing set in stone about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Commies are always first to burn libraries. Archive.org purchased the books. Even Elon Musk, who is capitalist, ultra-conservative, and anti-commie said this ruling is wrong. Reference: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/... [x.com]
Nominated Nov 2021 by Pres Joseph Biden (Score:2)
Democrat nominated judge rules against the internet archive.....
Re: (Score:2)
Useful to know Judge's political party (Score:2)
The media narrative is that only one party nominates judges which make 'unfavored' rulings.
Knowing the political party of the president who nominated the judge helps to dispel this myth.
What about controlled lending WITH controls? (Score:5, Insightful)
Internet Archive's "controlled digital lending" system and removal of controls during the pandemic don't qualify as fair use
My major question is: Has the 2nd Circuit said anything about Fair use of Controlled Lending without removal of controls, Or is this a narrow decision ?
I would say there is probably never any real question that they should Lose the argument that they can remove controls and claim Fair Use. For surely they should. They took it upon themselves to do something that was not possible with traditional lending - which was to create additional lendable units without procuring the physical copies for those. They NEEDED a legislative memory, and during the emergency was a time where they very well could have had a chance to get that remedy.
The removal of controls without authorization by congress should have been 100% expected to fail as fair use from the beginning: the IA was obviously gravely in the wrong from the start. And they've been doing the public a huge disservice to fight this and get a possibly bad precedent set.
Re:What about controlled lending WITH controls? (Score:5, Informative)
The ruling was clear that they were against it even with controls. Relevant quote:
"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. We therefore AFFIRM."
Re: (Score:2)
Internet Archive's "controlled digital lending" system and removal of controls during the pandemic don't qualify as fair use
My major question is: Has the 2nd Circuit said anything about Fair use of Controlled Lending without removal of controls, Or is this a narrow decision ?
The lower court decision went into this. They profess to digitally lend materials they own on a one-to-one basis. In practice they set up a scheme with "partner libraries" where they could lend copies the "partner libraries" owned without any coordination with the partner libraries lending systems. They and the partner libraries used this scheme as a means to bypass the licensing, payments, and simultaneous lending issues.
some animals are more equal (Score:5, Insightful)
It's perfectly fine for the POPO to automate surveillance and for greedy companies to hoover up personal information ad infinitum.
But real live human people can't be allowed to freely copy information if there's even the slightest possibility that someone can monetize it.
Re: (Score:2)
Wingnut pseudo-courts will soon outlaw sunlight. (Score:5, Funny)
Next on the agenda: Does rain unfairly compete with Nestle bottled water?
Re: (Score:2)
Nestle's president is already on record (something I read a few years back) saying that water shouldn't be free..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
yes he is clearly paying for all the water he is bottling up and selling :)
Remember t-shirts with decss code on them? (Score:2)
Next target: Public Libraries (Score:2)
I see no reason why this ruling couldn't be applied directly to your local public library. What and obscene judgement they've made.
Re:Next target: Public Libraries (Score:5, Insightful)
I see no reason why this ruling couldn't be applied directly to your local public library. What and obscene judgement they've made.
My local library is only realistically accessible by car and their selection absolutely sucks. That seems to be why the copyright lords allow the old school way of borrowing books to still exist. Borrowing books online just makes it too convenient for their liking.
Re: (Score:2)
Newsflash - your local library can't just choose to scan all their books and put them on the Internet for literally anyone in the world to read for free either.
Re: (Score:2)
Not what the Archive (openlibrary.org) does. It has one paper copy, which it then digitizes and lends to only one person at a time. It uses exactly the same control method as Overdrive uses, (Adobe) so the same method as public libraries use for electronic lending. The usual lending period was two weeks, but a lot of titles are now one hour with renewal if not requested by another subscriber.
What they did during the pandemic was stupid and wrong, they lent more copies at the same time than they had pap
Re: (Score:2)
Literally what the Archive does - they don't have permission to "lend" it to anyone online, no number of users at a time. And libraries can't do that without permission.
I'm gonna take a shot in the dark and say that Overdrive has publisher's permission to do so. Oh look: "Through the years, weâ(TM)ve established long-term, trusted relationships with publisher, library and school partners around the world."
And while the Archive still hosts complete MAME ROM sets, plus all kinds of movies and TV shows
The public will benefit by having less access? (Score:4, Informative)
“We conclude that both Publishers and the public will benefit if IA’s use is denied.” (huh? p. 59.)
They don't seem to understand how little money most authors receive. Article 11 of the Constitution is about fostering the creative arts, not about profit. Increasing availability of written works will foster creativity in the people who read those works.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no article 11 of the US Constitution. Care to give it a read and try again?
The copyright and patent clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8) isn't about fostering the creative arts either. It's about serving the public interest by promoting the progress of science and the useful arts, but not about promoting progress at all costs.
fk copyright. It's broken and corrupt. (Score:4, Informative)
The original deal was 14 years. 14 years to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
The first Act extended the copyright to December 31, 1965
the second Act extended it to December 31, 1967;
the third Act extended it to December 31, 1968;
the fourth Act extended it to December 31, 1969;
the fifth Act extended it to December 31, 1970;
the sixth Act extended it to December 31, 1971;
the seventh Act extended it to December 31, 1972;
the eighth Act extended it to December 31, 1974;
the ninth Act extended it to December 31, 1976,
The Copyright Act of 1976 finally extended the copyright through the end of 1982 (75 years from the end of the year in which the copyright was originally secured).
Re: (Score:2)
There have been a number of term extensions but whatever you're writing there is wildly off.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh jeeze! You should totally tell the library of congress that that their facts are "wildly off"
https://www.copyright.gov/circ... [copyright.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
heck they can have 20 years. but greed has no limit.
Re: (Score:2)
Make it 15 and renewable IF the owner is actively contributing to further the work. Example, Game of Thrones. First book released, 15 year clock started. Second book released in the same series, reset the 15 year clock, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Feh. Make it 1 year, renewable in 1 year terms if the copyright holder cares to do so for a token cost and only up to a modest number of renewals. I don't like your sequel idea at all; two books in one series are not one work.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, 1yr is too short, especially for small time authors.
Re: Fair?! 95 year copyright is not fair (Score:2)
The only purpose of copyright is to promote the progress of science by encouraging authors to create and publish works that they otherwise would not have created and published, where those works are in the public domain as thoroughly as possible as rapidly as possible.
It would be nice if we could tailor it to each individual author down to the second and down to the bare minimum of rights, so that they are given the exact amount of incentive needed and not one iota more but that's impractical.
A year is plen
Re: (Score:2)
now, if AI can break all copyright already, why are we even having this conversation?
Re: (Score:2)
Then we should setup a variable amount of time based on the type of the content. News doesn't need to be as long as science, etc. Then do renewals from there.