Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
31 comments
P J Evans

@pleaseclap @hobbsc @hailey
They were lending more copies than they owned. Copyright violation, AKA theft.

Michael T. Richter

@PJ_Evans @pleaseclap @hobbsc @hailey Copyright violation is not theft. It is infringement. These are different words (and governed by different laws) for a reason.

Stop falling for billionaire lies.

P J Evans

@qqmrichter @pleaseclap @hobbsc @hailey
They didn't pay for all the books they lent. That's theft.

Michael T. Richter

@PJ_Evans @pleaseclap @hobbsc @hailey No, you misunderstoon me. I said "stop falling for billionaire lies", not "continue perpetuating billionaire lies".

I know the difference is subtle, but see if you can tell them apart.

hobbsc

@qqmrichter @PJ_Evans @pleaseclap @hailey there's no need for argument here, y'all. be excellent to each other.

Michael T. Richter

@hobbsc @PJ_Evans @pleaseclap @hailey An argument would imply two people who know what they're talking about speaking.

One person in this exchange cannot distinguish between "infringement" and "theft" and is unequipped to have an actual argument.

Shell :fedora: :kde:

@hobbsc @qqmrichter @PJ_Evans @pleaseclap @hailey It's really funny and sad at the same time how they're constantly trying to appear nonchalant and one-up each other with phrases such as "sweetcheeks" lol

hp

@shellheim

Is it then also funny and sad how you're one-upping both of them by condescending with descriptions like "funny and sad" and laughing about them?

Shell :fedora: :kde:

@hp If I say no then that would be one-upping you, so I am trapped in this loop!

You seem to have bested me stranger! AAAAAHHHHH

hp replied to Shell :fedora: :kde:

@shellheim The trick is to only imply the one-upping by asking passive-aggressive questions!

Michael T. Richter

@PJ_Evans @pleaseclap @hobbsc @hailey Sweetcheeks, see if you can tell me the difference between "infringement" and "theft" and why they are entirely different terms in the legal sphere.

(Hint: no you can't, apparently, since you're still babbling nonsense.)

P J Evans

@qqmrichter@mastodon.world @pleaseclap @hobbsc @hailey
READ MY COMMENT. It wasn't about infringement (which I understand just fine, tyvm). IT was about them LENDING OUT BOOKS THEY DIDN'T EVEN OWN.

Nick Astley

@PJ_Evans @qqmrichter @hobbsc @hailey

"the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that permitting the Internet Archive’s digital library would “allow for widescale copying that deprives creators of compensation and diminishes the incentive to produce new works.”"

The Court is accurately describing the legal situation. These word choices are specific, limited, and literal. "Theft" is not among them on purpose, because it's not applicable.

You're welcome to try telling the Court they're wrong

maya

@PJ_Evans @qqmrichter @pleaseclap @hobbsc @hailey rentseeking parasites do not improve anyone’s lives, so I don’t understand why anyone would repeat their nonsensical talking points

Claudius Link

@PJ_Evans @pleaseclap @hobbsc @hailey
No they weren't
"each loan corresponds to a physically purchased book held in a library "

eishiya

@realn2s Was this still the case when the National Emergency Library programme was running, which started this whole thing? My impression was they they removed the loan caps entirely for that period?

Claudius Link

@eishiya
🙏🏻
True. I stay corrected. I'm not sure if the court case was restricted to that

Peter Bronez

@realn2s @eishiya yeahhh my understanding is it went like this:

1) Internet Archive has rights to X ebooks and operates a digital library to lend them out, limited to X copies lended at a time.

2) COVID hits, IA decides to lend out infinite copies at a time, arbitrarily ignoring the X limit

3) Publishers sue

4) Court agrees with Publishers

Peter Bronez

@realn2s @eishiya Honestly I’m pretty annoyed with the Internet Archive about this.

The Internet Archive is too important to expose it to avoidable problems like this. Lending books is outside their core value, and these legal problems drag down the whole organization.

Peter Bronez

@realn2s @eishiya there’s a robust discussion on HN, which includes the perspective that what I consider the existing value of the Internet Archive came from fighting similar battles years ago:

news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4

I don’t have enough evidence to reject that.

Peter Bronez

@realn2s @eishiya

All I know is this:

1) the marginal cost of reproducing digital information products (books, movies software) is practically zero

2) the fixed costs of producing them, with quality, remains high.

3) we don’t have good systems for rewarding high-quality production in this regime.

For more on this, read Who Owns the Future? by Jaron Lanier.

mkj

@PeterBronez As I recall it, your summary is broadly correct *except* for (1) which should be more like "for each book, Internet Archive legally possesses X copies, and operates a digital library to lend them out as ebooks, limited to the corresponding X copies lended at a time".

In other words, very close to loaning an item under first sale doctrine, except the intermediate step of digitizing the work and being able to loan it out at a distance.

@realn2s @eishiya

#

@realn2s @eishiya One of the few "old" internet projects of an internet, which I did not find fully disgusting.

And shitheads with a lot of money, power and an army of lawyers are doing their best to shut it down.

The older I get, the more of things I found important die. What's next? Wikipedia? Libreoffice? Gnome? KDE? Mozilla already made a nosedive into stupid.

P J Evans

@realn2s @pleaseclap @hobbsc @hailey
They lent more than they held. Actual libraries don't lend books they don't hold (and that includes ILL).

stefan
@pleaseclap @hobbsc @hailey

Time for a little rant on the topic.

So in general libraries only really lend out as many digital copies as they have physical books. Which the pubs tolerated that I suppose. I you wanted to lend more e-books any given time you need a subscription from the publishers (because thats the world we live in...) They come with a time-limited DRM so that the reader only has a certain amount of days to read the book. Afterwards (if you did not extend it) access to the book was blocked. Adobe with their system taken care of that.

The archive was or still is digitizing books they have physical copies to lend them out one-to-one. That certainly already stretched copyright but I guess the publishers had no real legal ground to fight this. So they might just let it slide damage is minimal anyway.

In germany I am allowed to make copies of stuff I bought for personal archival, though with stipulation that no DRM has to be broken in order to do so. So I am a pirate as well lol. Most of library was obtained by removing DRM from books I bought. Some interesting side-fact. Makers of everything that can store data in any form have to pay a small fee to some authors assocition for every device they make to accomodate this right

So someone at the internet archive seemed to have the bright idea to lend out e-books in unlimited numbers. Which lead to the publishers suing them. I mean I get the archive wanted to do good by still allowing people to access knowledge while locked in home. It just comes to bite them so hard rn.

Generally their idea of digitizing and lending out older books which might have never seen digital releases and are out of print is great. Good for preservation of stuff. They just overdone it...

Oh also I want to rant about the publishers as well. They just cannot get their pockets lined enough it seems. They really like hiding behind "the poor authors that don't get paid by pirating". Its such an easy excuse.

Thing is they might have a point but likely not for the majority of authors they house.

See generally when licensing your work you basically get to two options of getting paid. Either they offer you a fixed upfront and tell you everything is said and done with this one payment. Even if they sell millions. Or they go down the royalty model where you get a certain amount per book sold.

I think most publishers will offer you a mix at these times. So they will offer a fixed payment plus some small amount per book sold. Thats atleast for physicals.

I don't know how exactly authors are paid in these digital lending arrangements. Although I dunno how it works for physical lending as well. If someone know let me know.

I just have an inkling the authors don't get much from this...
@pleaseclap @hobbsc @hailey

Time for a little rant on the topic.

So in general libraries only really lend out as many digital copies as they have physical books. Which the pubs tolerated that I suppose. I you wanted to lend more e-books any given time you need a subscription from the publishers (because...
Go Up