Internet Archive's digital library has been found in breach of copyright. The decision has some important implications
Internet 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.
The legal ruling against the Internet Archive has come down in favour of the rights of authors.
You're viewing a single thread.
I 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.
I 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 TPB which plays the game well).
I don't understand why they kept the "emergency library" 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 June 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 doesn't mean that the COVID aspect wouldn't 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 it's causing greater harm to your product then it's 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 couldn't 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 it's good it will lure users into the book/show or whatever's 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 it’s causing greater harm to your product then it’s 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.
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.
The internet archive is awesome, their decision in 2020 was fucking stupid
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 won't. This will help Amazon. People renting your book from the internet archive is not why you're 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 don’t do that.
Libraries can do that. Okay, technically, it's illegal, but under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, since US libraries are run by political subdivisions of US states, they can't be sued with the state's permission which means that a state government can literally not allow the library to be sued for copyright infringement and then they'd 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.
Edit: The controlling US Supreme Court precedent is Allen v. Cooper. The State of North Carolina published a bunch of shipwreck photos. The copyright owner of those photos sued claiming copyright infringement. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the state saying Congress can't abrogate a state's Amendment XI sovereign immunity using copyright law as a pretext, thus the photography firm needs the State's permission to sue it in federal court.
Even assuming that is a viable application of sovereign immunity, which I am not at all convinced, at a minimum you've described a very strong due process violation. No, libraries cannot just arbitrarily infringe copyrights.
Copyright is federal, not state law. The state or municipal library system would get sued and lose in federal court.
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 "public record" and the photography firm that owned the copyright sued. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress cannot abrogate a state's sovereign immunity under its Article I legislative powers and thus ruled in favour of the state.
That case is still being litigated:
https://ipwatchdog.com/2023/02/23/allen-v-cooper-back-queen-annes-vengeance/id=156986/
Copyright is federal bub. They get sued in federal court. Or the FBI shows up and takes all their servers.
The congress could choose to alter copyright laws of course to make this legal. But they can’t just do it. And states definitely can’t.
Yes, it is federal. Congress can't abrogate a state's sovereign immunity to make them liable under copyright law. In fact, they tried and it was deemed unconstitutional (Allen v. Cooper). States can't be sued in federal court without their permission (Amendment XI).
If some library decided to infringe copyright then it could most certainly be sued for compensation under the Takings Clause.
Government has a Constitutional obligation to pay for any private property it takes, whether it's land for a new building or intellectual property.
It is fairly clear the parent isn’t a lawyer. It’s also fairly clear they have very little interaction with law in general. I’m guessing more of the sovereign citizen camp.
I'm not a sovereign citizen. This is just a point where the law isn't fair/doesn't work in the way that you'd expect. See the updated parent comment for sources + legal reasoning.
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?
All the libraries I've ever been to in multiple states have books, magazines, movies and music.
You should probably go in one if you love them so much. Then you'd know what you're talking about.
I do frequently. If you’re 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.
It’s 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 weren’t doing that. They were acquiring (legally or not, I’m not sure) copies and putting on their website for as many people as wanted to read them.
That is not what libraries do.
It’s why libraries don’t photocopy infinite books so there’s never a waiting list. You can’t do it with print media, and you can’t do it with digital media.
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 you’re proposing.
Which artist involved in this suit is working for free?
How old are the copyrights being upheld?
I'd need to know those two pieces of information before coming to a conclusion. No one should work for free, I can agree with that, but is that is what is occurring?