xuxebikoInternet Archive's digital library has been found in breach of copyright. The decision has some important implications
The legal ruling against the Internet Archive has come down in favour of the rights of authors.
srasmusI hope all the writers who support this lawsuit understand that they are contributing to a long standing effort to outlaw libraries in general. Nobody makes direct money off of sharing things. Get ready for DRM involved in every single thing that you do.
NumbersCanBeFunEvery day I lose a little more faith in humanity. Still holding out hope we might turn it around though đ
People at the internet archive literally gave away all the books they had in the library for free to as many people who wanted them, basically pretending they had a right to copy the books as many times as they desired as long as it was under the guise of being a library.
Not only did they deserve to lose this case, they displayed such arrogant weaponized stupidity in making that decision that I'm surprised they weren't trying to screw themselves over
I agree it was stupid. I just know that media companies are foaming at the mouth to use this decision to destroy online lending all together. And many writers are being tricked into thinking this will somehow help them. It wonât. This will help Amazon. People renting your book from the internet archive is not why youâre failing to make money.
Listen, I love libraries as much as the next person. We have very clear laws that protect libraries.
Is copyright a little fucked and a little too slanted towards those rights holders? Yes.
Did anyone really think it was OK to start adding books and movies in? And provide those for free to everyone simultaneously? Libraries donât do that.
Libraries can do that. Okay, technically, itâs illegal, but under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, since libraries are run by political subdivisions of US states, they canât be sued with the stateâs permission which means that a state government can literally not allow the library to be sued for copyright infringement and then theyâd get away with it.
The trade-off is that this probably permanently burns all bridges between the library and publishers, who would likely not want to deal with the library any more.
The trade-off is that this probably permanently burns all bridges between the library and publishers, who would likely not want to deal with the library any more.
To be fair how is that a tradeoff? Weren't other people contributing to the internet archive?
Even assuming that is a viable application of sovereign immunity, which I am not at all convinced, at a minimum youâve described a very strong due process violation. No, libraries cannot just arbitrarily infringe copyrights.
Copyright is federal, not state law.
The applicable Supreme Court precedent here is Allen v. Cooper. The State of North Carolina published all pictures of a shipwreck within its custody on its website as âpublic recordâ and the photography firm that owned the copyright sued. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress cannot abrogate a stateâs sovereign immunity under its Article I legislative powers and thus ruled in favour of the state.
That case is still being litigated:
Allen v. Cooper: Back with a (Queen Anneâs) Vengeance
A casual reading of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Allen v. Cooper might have led one to reasonably believe that it ended the plaintiffsâ copyright case. But, as with so many other issues encountered in the legal realm, much lies below the surface.
Itâs not even technically illegal. Libraries, like you and me, are allowed to lend physical books, music CDs, and DVDs to whomever they want.
Some libraries also lend e-books, but they had to obtain permission to do so from the copyright holder, just as Netflix had to obtain permission in order to stream media.
It is fairly clear the parent isnât a lawyer. Itâs also fairly clear they have very little interaction with law in general. Iâm guessing more of the sovereign citizen camp.
Iâm not a sovereign citizen. This is just a point where the law isnât fair/doesnât work in the way that youâd expect. See the updated parent comment for sources + legal reasoning.
Copyright is federal bub. They get sued in federal court.
Yes, it is federal. Congress canât abrogate a stateâs sovereign immunity to make them liable under copyright law (Allen v. Cooper). In fact, they tried and it was deemed unconstitutional (). States canât be sued in federal court without their permission (Amendment XI).
All the libraries Iâve ever been to in multiple states have books, magazines, movies and music.
I do frequently. If youâre going to be so smug, you should also be correct. They purchase a copy of each media that they loan at any single time.
If they have 5 copies of digital media, 5 people can use them simultaneously. Not more.
Itâs why Libby has a waiting list.
The internet archive would have been legal if they had a) purchased the copy and b) had not lent it to more than a single person simultaneously (or purchased more copies). They werenât doing that. They were acquiring (legally or not, Iâm not sure) copies and putting on their website for as many people as wanted to read them.
That is not what libraries do.
hoodatninjaI still can't believe IA took this risk, however. I agree it should've been fine, but they and we know it isn't. They basically begged for this to happen and I don't understand why when they clearly don't have their ducks in a row to pick this fight (unlike, say TPB which plays the game well).
CorkyskogI donât understand why they kept the âemergency libraryâ open after COVID restrictions were lifted. I think they might have had a better shot in court if they had gone back to the normal digital library protocol.
The article says it was shutdown in July 2020, a few months after it started. Is that inaccurate?
Was the emergency library consensual in the first place? If not, then I would assume lockdown was irrelevant, legally speaking⌠and it would easily explain why the IA is in hot water right now.
No it was not I believe. But it doesnât mean that the COVID aspect wouldnât be weighed into the matter. Still likely would have ended up with them losing, either way in my opinion unfortunately.
I am way too liberal about this sort of stuff and I think you should only be able to go after sharing/pirating if you can definitively prove itâs causing greater harm to your product then itâs benefit.
I often borrow/pirate something to end up paying for another related book, game, Shows or movies, etc. I would have never even bothered if I couldnât have borrowed/pirated in the first place as I am not going to throw money at shit that is likely going to be crap. Pirating and free lending allows for people to get an intro to something, if itâs good it will lure users into the book/show or whateverâs universe. Causing them to be much more likely to purchase in the future.
Then once the actuaries calculate out that number the only damages you should be able to claim are the difference, if there even is a difference.
I think you should only be able to go after sharing/pirating if you can definitively prove itâs causing greater harm to your product then itâs benefit.
The problem is that while most of us agree, we all also know that isn't how the world works. IA is a major name, they are obviously not operating under the radar. They picked a fight they weren't ready to take on and they should've known better, but instead they decided to jeopardize the entire project.
If you want to be The Pirate Bay, then you need to play it smart like The Pirate Bay. This was reckless and short sighted.
Just because its not how it currently works, doesnât mean it canât be changed. We do have an entire branch of government to do just that. I am not optimistic positive changes will be made in that regard, but it doesnât hurt to talk about it.
Iâm not sure youâre responding to the correct person?
And I hope people who sides with IA in this eill accept to stop collecting their wages and start working for free.
Because this is what youâre proposing.
Which artist involved in this suit is working for free?
I remember my aunt (lawyer) coming up with some insane conspiracy-level solution to this problem:
The Supreme Court has ruled in Allen v. Cooper that Congressional attempts to make US state governments liable for copyright infringement are unconstitutional. In other words, US states canât be sued for copyright infringement under US federal law without their permission. Under standard federal jurisprudence, all subdivisions and departments of a state are considered to be the state they are a part of for the purposes of sovereign immunity. This also applies to organisations that receive most of their funding from and are wholly dependent on state government agencies as well.
The solution would be to have a friend state government either:
- donate a copious amount of money to the Internet Archive to make it âfinancially dependentâ on that state government, or
- in cooperation with the Internet Archive, pass a law that makes the Internet Archive an independent state agency of that government (probably safer in terms of keeping the IA independence)
This would make the IA fully immune from copyright lawsuits because they would benefit from their patron stateâs sovereign immunity. But it comes at the cost that the patron state has a lot of power over the IA. A considerable trade-off.
SanctusYour aunt should write spy novels with tbe level of conspiracy present in this. But its not QAnon conspiracy, its James Bond type conspiracy.
QAnon would have made for an excellent action movie plotline if only people didnât subscribe to it in real life. Swap in some fake politicians and itâs almost Hollywood-ready.
Copyright and patent laws need to die.
5 years protection should be the limit. If you can't make back costs and get a tidy sum in 5 years, you fucked up. Especially as most sales are within the first few months
Nah. I think if you canât defend your own secrets, you shouldnât have taxpayer resources to do it for you.
I love capitalism
Flying SquidCan someone please scrape the Internet Archive before it gets shut down?
Thereâs no backup. Imagine all that weâll lose.
Itâs not the entire Internet Archive that has been found infringing. The judgment applies only to the Internet Archiveâs lending of digital books without limiting the number of copies.
Sure. This time.
Fuck copyright