• metaStatic@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    50
    ·
    1 month ago

    “We are reviewing the court’s opinion and will continue to defend the rights of libraries to own, lend, and preserve books.”

    Unpopular opinion: They stepped out of their fucking lane. There are already laws that protect actual libraries, in fact most nations have laws to ensure libraries have access to all locally published works.

    One good thing to come of this is I’ve now joined my national and local libraries.

    • ArchRecord@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      102
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 month ago

      The Internet Archive is a library.

      Not only are they a member of the Boston Library Consortium, but their entire operation is based around preserving not just webpages, but books, and other forms of media.

      They even offer loans of various materials to and from other libraries, and digitize & archive works from the Library of Congress, the Smithsonian, the New York Public Library, and more.

      To say the Internet Archive isn’t an “actual library,” and has “stepped out of their fucking lane” is ridiculous.

      This ruling doesn’t just affect the Internet Archive, it affects every single other library out there that wants to lend ebooks, and digitize their existing physical copies of books for digital lending.

      • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        48
        ·
        1 month ago

        Other libraries have licenses. And follow them.

        Internet archive digitized actual books and lent out copies (which was already 100% not legal under current law), then thought it was a good idea to just say “fuck it” and remove the thin veil of legitimacy that kept publishers from caring too much by removing the “one copy at a time per book” policy and daring the publishers to do something about it.

        • ArchRecord@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          55
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          They removed the one copy rule temporarily, during the pandemic, it’s now in place again. But the publishers have made any digitized lending illegal, not just more than one copy, any digitized lending. It is now illegal for them to scan and distribute even one single copy of any book.

          It was never a problem with the single-copy restriction, and the publishers didn’t bring up that restriction at all as the purpose of the suit, instead attacking the entirety of scanning & lending, even using Controlled Digital Lending (CDL) systems, like the Internet Archive, and other libraries use.

          Even regardless of that, the First-sale Doctrine enables all existing secondary markets for copyrighted material. It’s how you can lend a book to a friend, sell a used book after you’re finished it, or swap copies of a video game on disk with somebody.

          The Internet Archive is included in this. Changing the method of distribution (lending a digital copy vs a physical copy) has no functional distinction, and the publishers in the lawsuit were not able to demonstrate material harm, instead just stating that it wasn’t “fair use,” and should thus be illegal, regardless of the fact that they weren’t harmed by the supposedly non-fair use.

          And on top of that, fuck the law if it’s unjust. I don’t care if it’s supposedly (even if not true) “100% not legal under current law” to do, it should be, and this ruling is unjust.

          • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            37
            ·
            1 month ago

            Any digitized lending was always illegal.

            The law was abundantly clear. You cannot distribute wholesale copies of someone else’s work. Publishers didn’t bother because the scale was small and they didn’t want to take the PR hit for a scale that didn’t matter.

            The first sale doctrine, necessarily, can only possibly apply to a physical object. There is no such thing as a “single copy” of a digital object. Every time that “single copy” moves is a new copy. There is no legal framework in the US that even acknowledges the premise of a digital copy. It’s always a license.

            You need new laws to apply to the digital world. There is absolutely zero room for ambiguity that what the Internet archive did never in any way was protected. This ruling was a literal guarantee the minute the Internet Archive removed their (unambiguously not in any way legal) pretense of a “single copy”. There isn’t a court in the country that would even consider ruling any other way, because the law is well beyond clear. This ruling happened because the Internet Archive forced it to happen. If they had left open mass scale piracy to pirate sites they would have been fine.

            If their lawyers advised them that there was even a possibility that this argument could work, they should be disbarred. They would be better off spending their money on lobbying for better laws than pursuing a case less likely than winning the power ball jackpot 5 draws in a row.

            • ArchRecord@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              36
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 month ago

              Any digitized lending was always illegal.

              the law is well beyond clear.

              I think Title 17, Chapter 108 of the U.S. Code would beg to differ. Digitized lending was always allowed, especially for libraries and archives. The only ambiguous part was the number of copies allowed to be digitized of any individual work, (many of the books the Internet Archive digitized only had one copy digitized and lent at any given time) so most of what the Internet Archive engaged in was fully legal under this code, and only a fraction of the 500 million titles that are now illegal to lend would have been affected, even though all 500 million can now not be legally lent due to this ruling.

              You need new laws to apply to the digital world.

              True, we can agree on that. We need new laws. Until that point, no change will happen if the boundaries are not pushed.

              I guarantee you there hasn’t been anywhere near the current level of momentum for the rights of libraries to lend digitized books any time prior to this court case. If the Internet Archive hadn’t done it in the first place, we would be in the same situation we’re in after this ruling.

              Them doing so pushes the issue forward.

              This ruling was a literal guarantee the minute the Internet Archive removed their (unambiguously not in any way legal) pretense of a “single copy”

              As I’ll say again, this was not the premise under which the publishers won this case. They won the case under the premise that any digitized lending was not transformative, and thus not “fair use,” even though it’s legal under other statutes. The number of copies held no bearing on the ruling.

              • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                27
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                Literally every digital “loan” is multiple separate, unrecoverable copies. That law is not about digital lending and cannot be applied to digital lending.

                All digital lending of copyrighted material without an explicit license to do so is copyright infringement, and it was always a guarantee that the ruling would happen.

                The removal of the “single copy” lie isn’t relevant to the legal status. It’s relevant because it forced the hands of the publishers to take action. There was never any possibility of any ruling but the obvious blanket “you can’t do that” that the law dictates, once IA forced them to take it to court.

                • ArchRecord@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  22
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  That law is not about digital lending and cannot be applied to digital lending.

                  That’s provably incorrect.

                  “it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archives […] to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work”

                  Title 17, USC 101 defines a copy as “…material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device…

                  Digital replication falls under the legal definition of copying in the US Code, and is directly cited in the prior section of the code I reference in my last reply.

                  The Internet Archive’s loans also utilize DRM, a standard kind of software used by every other library out there to restrict further replication of copies. This same technology is in use with libraries who have contracts with publishers to directly download and publish digital copies of non-printed ebooks, which would violate that contract by not using DRM. The Internet Archive, without any express contract from publishers, is still implementing the strongest measures of protection that the publishers themselves would require whether or not content was directly licensed from them instead of being scanned in from a physical copy.

                  It’s relevant because it forced the hands of the publishers to take action.

                  Nothing forced them to do anything. These publishers voluntarily decided to file a lawsuit because of mounting pressure from libraries as a collective to stop charging insanely high prices on ebook rentals from publishers, which they saw as being undermined by the fact that the Internet Archive was able to still pay for the books in question, but lend them out in the same manner that physical books are already lent, just through a screen.

                  As I mentioned before, if the Internet Archive had never done this in the first place, public outcry would be practically nonexistent, and the Internet Archive wouldn’t be lending out those books at all, just like they’re not legally able to now. There is no difference to if they had or had not done this, other than the fact that it is now more visible in the public sphere, and has active legal challenges instead of being quietly subverted by regulation and practices publishers have continued to mount against all libraries to re-establish what it means to own a copyrighted work.

                  • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    17
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    It is literally impossible to send a file over the internet with no more than one copy. Every additional “loan” is multiple additional copies. Even if we ignore that, you’re very conveniently ignoring the “material objects” part of that definition, which again, completely and unconditionally disqualifies a loan over the internet.

                    DRM is entirely irrelevant. It has no bearing on anything.

                    They filed a lawsuit because IA flagrantly and egregiously violated their rights. They openly fucking dared them to. And now they don’t get ignored on their limited copy illegal lending and can’t get away with any copies.

          • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            22
            ·
            1 month ago

            How about, instead of throwing a tantrum about the courts doing the only thing they had any authority to do, you spend your efforts lobbying to fix IP law?

            • Hydra_Fk@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              1 month ago

              Yeah because that has ever changed anything. I’ll just keep voting harder while I’m at it.

              • PeachMan@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 month ago

                Accusing somebody else of licking the boot, while you’re having the same boot ground in your face and just acting like it’s no big deal, not a problem.

                  • Allero@lemmy.today
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    Oh, and now you make a great deal of change by putting slurs all over.

                    Wanna change someone’s mind? Go civil. Wanna vent your anger? Don’t vent it on other people.

                    I 100% want all copyright to be eliminated, but what you do is counterproductive and rude at best.

    • SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      1 month ago

      Agreed. While a noble cause, it was honestly predictable.

      I don’t understand why they did that. Their status was already quite shaky. They really shot themselves and their users in the foot