Comment on Internet Archive forced to remove 500,000 books after publishers’ court win
notnotmike@programming.dev 4 months ago
I was looking for resources for a custom LLM and noticed they had a ton of copyrighted books and wondered to myself how the heck that was legal
I guess this answers that
cafeinux@infosec.pub 4 months ago
Just like regular libraries have copyrighted books: they lend them to one person at a time.
Nougat@fedia.io 4 months ago
Which IA failed to do, which is why they got sued, and why they can’t lend those publishers’ books at all anymore.
I have no sympathy.
Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Just want to let you know why you’re being downvoted. It’s not because you’re wrong. From a legal perspective you’re right. This court case was decided this way because you’re right.
But that last line about having no sympathy. There’s a meme for this.
“You’re not wrong. You’re just an asshole.”
FaceDeer@fedia.io 4 months ago
It's an asshole perspective that the IA dearly needs to listen to. Don't poke a bear when you have so much to lose. Doesn't matter if you're "in the right". The history books are littered with the corpses of righteous people.
Let the EFF handle the quixotic battles, it's what they're best at.
Nougat@fedia.io 4 months ago
I made my peace with that a long time ago.
fin@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
Isn’t it “asshole” to consume copyrighted works for free?
db2@lemmy.world 4 months ago
They should have known better…
stembolts@programming.dev 4 months ago
“Because what is legal is always right.
And what is right is always legal.”
No?
In a fascist state, your mindset is welcome, “Well they broke the rule, they must pay,” but do you never abstract one more level? Is the rule itself breaking something?
Those who downvote you say yes. Nuance is important. The rule has two main affects that I see.
Okay lets think about #1. Is that good or bad?
Okay lets think about #2. Is that good or bad?
Being critical in thought enough to recognize the flaws of the first quote is key.
Nighed@feddit.uk 4 months ago
They should have poked the bear with a separate legal entity so the obvious resulting legal loss wouldn’t effect their core operations.
I support the idea as long as it’s for dead authors/out of print books, but from what I understand they were just letting people ‘borrow’ anything? That’s just stupid (if idealistic)
whocares314@lemmy.world 4 months ago
(citation needed)
Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 4 months ago
FaceDeer@fedia.io 4 months ago
The Wikipedia article explains and has sources.
Oisteink@feddit.nl 4 months ago
They claimed to use the same protections as others. Is there a more accurate article about how their lending was faulty?
reddig33@lemmy.world 4 months ago
During Covid, they lent out multiple copies of the same book when they only had physical access to one copy. It would be like your local library making Xerox copies of their collection and handing them out.
wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 months ago
Not sure about an article, but they themselves announced that their emergency covid library would not set limits on the amount of copies that could be checked out. That’s literally the law they broke, that it has to be 1 to 1 outside of any other agreement.
ABCDE@lemmy.world 4 months ago
That is what happens though, it’s clear about that.
notnotmike@programming.dev 4 months ago
They definitely weren’t monitoring the one at a time rule… I downloaded the file and now have it forever
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
Sounds like a you problem. ;)
notnotmike@programming.dev 4 months ago
How does that make sense? How does putting a “Download PDF” button on their site with no restrictions make this a “me” problem?