Wrote Judge John G. Koeltl, of the Southern District of New York, quoted in "A judge sided with publishers in a lawsuit over the Internet Archive's online library" (NPR)(full text of case here).
It's well established that if you buy a printed book, you can share that book with as many people as you want, pass it around, lend it out, give it away, re-sell it. The book is an object that is owned, like a hat or a teddy bear. But a digital copy of that book you own is not the object. It's something else. And you've made a copy and are only lending that out. You still have the book, even though you may be keeping it, inert, on a shelf.
पोस्ट्स
२० टिप्पण्या:
This seems like a problem that the silly little NFTs can solve.
I prefer real books. That way, they can't censor, or change it...not to mention delete it from my library. https://gizmodo.com/amazon-can-take-away-your-digital-books-and-movies-when-1484152908
The law completely fucked up the web when it ruled that radio commercials may not be streamed along with the show, because the makers of the commercials are not being compensated for the size of billions of the internet audience. So radio streaming pretty much stopped except here and there where somebody worked to cut out the commercials.
Something else that's going on here is the huge number of 'how to' documents, manuals and guides for various processes that violate ITAR on that site. Everything from US Army TM manuals, to 3d printer files, to back-of-napkin design inspirations and grey-hat hacker code is there along with lots and lots of stuff the government would prefer you didn't know how to do. You just have to know how to look for it and Internet Archive was a major referral location to download certain information all around the net...at least it was before this suit started.
There's a lot to be said for just plain 'old government censorship. As if the government is really going to let a place where you can download 3d printer files for full auto Glock switches remain up and running. Hint, they're not, regardless of the argument they need to use to shut it down.
The FBI takes a dim view, and the DOJ vigorously prosecutes at the behest of Hollywood, anyone who copies a home video (that they've legally bought, going back to the days of VHS) for sale.
As a Writer's Guild member, I get dozens of DVDs every awards season, each of which is invisibly watermarked, so that if copies of a movie/show begin showing up on, say eBay, I'm not only kicked out of the guild and lose my pension, I'm also prosecuted. (The feds love Hollywood, and eagerly do its bidding.)
A critical point from the article;
"With its other online collections, the Internet Archive had been lending out one digital copy of a book to one reader at a time, but the nonprofit suspended that policy for the National Emergency Library, allowing many readers to borrow the same book at once."
It sounds like even lending one at a time was infringement, but probably would not have gotten them sued.
It amazes me that it took as long as it did for publishers to put the flagrantly illegal IA out of business. Authors deserve better protection.
Of course the judge sided with the publishing industry. Its greedy and leftwing and so is the judge. Internet archive is non-profit, they don't make $ off "Lending books". Not only that, your access is limited. Its impossible to say how the publishers are losing money.
In any case, Congress is in the pocket of BIG BOOK, so why didn't Hackett just bribe Mitch McConnell, schumer, and pelosi? That's what they usually do. That's why we have this never ending forever unlimited copyrights.
Here's what the US Constitution says:
"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.”
This meant 20 years in 1790. Its now up to the life of the author plus 50 years. Disney still has the copyright to movie characters produced 95 years ago! The SCOTUS Refused to step in and rein in congress.
I wish Conservatives would smarten up. It does not matter what the constitution says. It only matters what the Judges say. That's why waving the sacred text around and complaining accomplishes nothing. The only forward is to change the Judicial system
I'm always amazed at how greedy Americans are. Not only personally greedy, but they admire greed in others. Never do they never say, "Well, gee your business makes $10,000 million, why are you screwing workers or the public over to make $10,200 million"?
In this case, the Hackett groups "Loss" was almost zero. But hey they might be losing 5 cents. So, they sued. And are cheered on by all the Business uber alles types and the philistines.
I can remember Republicans in the 80s supporting the TV networks and Hollywood when they sued to keep people from taping Tv shows. "Why, That's socialism, boy. We uns cant support that!"
But a digital copy of that book you own is not the object. It's something else. And you've made a copy and are only lending that out.
Sounds like our banking system.
Unfortunate, I like that library a lot.
Internet Archive is a non-profit organization loaning books to one reader at a time. I don't see the problem.
Internet Archive is a non-profit organization loaning books to one reader at a time.
They are heading more and more in that direction. It wasn't always like that. The "lending library" aspect of the archive may have been developed to prevent lawsuits like this one, so that any number of visitors can't just get their own pdf of the book for free. That's what sunk b-ok.cc, which has been "seized" by the FBI. If letting people borrow a book on a one copy at a time for a limited amount of time basis with no money changing hands is a problem, it looks like overreach by publishers and the government. At least it looks that way to me, because I really like the Archive.
Once again, the tyranny of modern copyright law destroying the very thing copyright was given constitutional protections.
"the tyranny of modern copyright law"
Indeed. 20 years is plenty. Anything beyond is not meaningfully "limited."
"20 years is plenty" for copyright law?
So says someone who doesn't have books that still sell, and bring him royalties, 20+ years later...as I do.
Fuck off with that. I spent years writing those books, and frankly, sometimes it takes many years for them to "earn out"--that is, break even, let alone go into the black. I cash every one of those checks with the memory of all the blood, neurons, and hemorrhoids it took to put those words on the page and screen.
It's easy to imagine lending a digital copy of a physical book that is locked until the digital copy is returned. Unless I explicitly promise not to do this when I buy a book, I don't see why I should listen to any 'authority' on whether I can.
I borrow a lot of books from Internet archive to read, since I live in the Philippines. Most of what I read are older books that are no longer in print (many available from the Library of India)...
This decision is terrible for those of us who are on a limited budget.
For newer books, I subscribe to Scribd.
As for the argument about print vs ebook:
I brought about 100 books with me when I moved here, and often buy used books when I visit Manila. But since I am older, I prefer Ebooks because it is easier to read on my tablet, where I can adjust the size of the print, and if my eyes get tired, just switch to text to voice and listen to the book.
As a published author, I do not understand why intellectual property, unlike physical property, cannot be left to one's heirs, and they to their heirs, and so on.
Ancient Mariner, perhaps it would help to consider the significant differences between actual property, and the thing that we metaphorically call intellectual "property".
For the record, I am a software developer and so, like an author, my work depends on copyright; and I detest the "intellectual property" because it is so misleading.
Calling it "intellectual monopoly" would bring much clarity to the issue, and I would say to you (and Cassandra) that 20 years is plenty of time for you to receive a government-enforced monopoly, after which you are on your own.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा