Comment by bradrn | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bradrn | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This is interesting, from that section:

    Nor does IA’s promise not to lend simultaneously its
    lawfully acquired print copies and its unauthorized reproductions
    help its case. As an initial matter, IA has not kept its promise.
    Although the Open Library’s print copies of the Works in Suit are
    non-circulating, IA concedes that it has no way of verifying
    whether Partner Libraries remove their physical copies from
    circulation after partnering with IA. Pls.’ 56.1 ¶¶ 495-496. To
    the contrary, IA knows that some Partner Libraries do not remove
    the physical books from their shelves, and even if a Partner
    Library puts a physical book into a non-circulating reference
    collection, it could be read in the library while the ebook
    equivalent is checked out. Id. ¶¶ 494, 497. IA also does not
    inform Partner Libraries when an ebook in its collection is
    checked out, and Partner Libraries do not tell IA when their
    physical copies are circulating. Id. ¶ 498. IA admits it has
    never taken action against a Partner Library that did not
    suppress circulation properly. Id. ¶ 499.

I do want IA to win, but this certainly doesn’t help their case, to say the least…

This is such an “ackchully” argument from the ruling. It’s not the spirit of the law and the principles behind the idea of free access to information. Instead it’s narrowing in on the specifics of physical lending of books, grasping for analogies to the 20th century, in a world which has transformed and moved on decades ago.

But even if all those things weren’t true, or important, it’s profound that there’s enough collective incentive to go after IA, instead of say corporations violating GPL, or the hedgies who created “temporary” artificial supply of stocks (which shares a similar “overprovisioning” aspect, except they’re fraudulent at massive scale).

Make no mistake, the law is specific made to limit free access to information. Originally this was a reasonable concession to encourage creative work, but as the length extended and copyright starts to be controlled by massive corporations, they gradually became a way to protect profits.

Right. IMO copyright in general seriously conflicts with the very concepts of free expression and ownership. As corporations eat the world and are able to push to maximize copyright to protect their profits, our rights of expression and ownership are diminished. Fair use and the first sale doctrine will ultimately be meaninglessly minimized curiosities if we don't fight, tooth and nail, corporate IP holders and the bought state entities that protect them.

This.

When IP laws existed to make sure authors could be compensated people broadly supported them. The perception has changed (for many reasons), to where people broadly see IP laws as an enabler for corporate greed more than being about fair compensation for authors. (See Disney not paying owed royalties, for example.)

We can either have "good copyright" that the public sees as reasonable, or we can have rampant piracy and the consequences thereof. The villains of the piece are those who deliberately perpetuate an unsustainable system out of greed (and I am not talking about authors and publishers trying to get paid for the work they've done).

> they gradually became a way to protect profits.

It was always from the very beginning a way to protect profits, that was the primary intent of copyright law, to give the creator of a work the exclusive right to make the money from the work before others are allowed to take the content and sell it for their own profit. Yes the length has become crazy long, and yes the law limits free (as in beer) access to information, but that hasn’t changed the reason for it’s being at all. It’s not really a “concession” either, more like it was intentionally balanced to provide enough time for people to make profits (which is what economically encourages creative work), while being short enough to allow works to reach the public over time.

Strange that this isn't easily dealt with by:

1. IA actually buying a physical copy (or as many copies as they plan on simultaneously making available to borrowers) of the book. 2. After scanning the physical copy, destroying it, and documenting same.

Then as long as they guarantee that they only loan out as many copies as they physically had (before destroying them) there's no question of simultaneous usage.

IA doesn't want to destroy its own books, because it warehouses them in climate-controlled spaces so that it can re-scan them with improved technology in the future. That should hardly preclude (controlled) lending of scans of its own physical books that nobody is using, even under current draconian copyright law.

The Internet Archive freely admitted in the case that the physical copies owned by partner libraries were not destroyed.

Yeah, I get that they may not have done this -- that's why I suggested it could be "easily dealt with" by doing this.

Why isn't it easily dealt with by doing that??

Oh, then this case was found on the facts. (They are doing a thing that pretty clearly violates fair use.)

I like the IA, but I’m happy this was the screw up. It should greatly weaken the precedent this ruling creates.

If this were the only argument, I would agree with you. However, there’s other arguments, many of which are quite general in nature.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com