They definitely weren’t monitoring the one at a time rule… I downloaded the file and now have it forever
Comment on Internet Archive forced to remove 500,000 books after publishers’ court win
cafeinux@infosec.pub 1 week agoJust like regular libraries have copyrighted books: they lend them to one person at a time.
notnotmike@programming.dev 1 week ago
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
Sounds like a you problem. ;)
notnotmike@programming.dev 1 week ago
How does that make sense? How does putting a “Download PDF” button on their site with no restrictions make this a “me” problem?
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
You should obviously delete those downloaded files like a good boy.
Nougat@fedia.io 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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.
stembolts@programming.dev 1 week ago
“No one should stand up for new rights. Don’t rock the boat bro.”
Your mindset is the road to a dictatorship.
Nougat@fedia.io 1 week ago
I made my peace with that a long time ago.
Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 week ago
You should strive to improve as as person rather than be a stagnant asshole
fin@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
Isn’t it “asshole” to consume copyrighted works for free?
uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 week ago
Not for over half a century, once Disney lobbied the US federal government to extend temporary monopolies to egregious lengths. The point of intellectual property rights is to build a robust public domain, so every year of every extension is a year denied to the public.
This has been forgotten or ignored by the ownership class with Sony and Nintendo prosecuting use and public archival abandonware games the way Disney goes after nursery murals.
So no, we would be better off with no IP laws all than the current laws we have, and the ownership class routinely screw artists, developers and technicians for their cut of their share of the profits in what is known as Hollywood Accounting. And the record labels will cheat any artist or performer who doesn’t have a Hammerhead Lawyer (or bigger) to ensure their contract is kosher.
So no. Come with me to Barbary; we’ll ply there up and down. 🏴☠️
Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 1 week ago
No. Here, let me introduce you to things like libraries, and education.
And, again, he’s not an asshole for being right. He’s an asshole for having no sympathy for the loss of what should have been an archival giant.
halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 1 week ago
That depends on if you see the current copyright system as far to start with. The current system is a far cry from how it was created and was co-opted by companies like Disney to maintain monopolies on their IP for MUCH longer than the system was supposed to protect.
southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
As a published (if hilariously unsuccessful) author; no, no it isn’t.
TheTetrapod@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Unequivocally no.
Lettuceeatlettuce@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
Copyright is bullshit, so no.
cm0002@lemmy.world 1 week ago
No.
KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
no?
Redistributing them, especially for money, maybe.
db2@lemmy.world 1 week ago
They should have known better…
stembolts@programming.dev 1 week 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.
wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
This isn’t about right or wrong though. It’s explicitly about whether or not they broke the law.
They did. They did so loudly and proudly. This is why we are here, where they lost the legal battle.
If someone is pointing a gun at you with their finger on the trigger, and you say “Just try to shoot me! I dare you! You know you won’t you little chickenshit.” then you should have a pretty good expectation to get shot.
Everything else is valid, but significantly less important. IA has to operate in the rules that currently exist, not what the rules should be. There are better ways to get bad laws changed than to dare someone to find you guilty of them.
Maybe this case will be the first building block towards overturning the asinine digital lending laws. I would love if it was, but I’m not holding my breath.
Nighed@feddit.uk 1 week 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 1 week ago
(citation needed)
Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 1 week ago
whocares314@lemmy.world 1 week ago
FWIW I didn’t downvote you for this. I read the Ars article and saw the bit about them making it unlimited during the early pandemic days, but it seemed to imply that is was above board during other times. So if the whole case hinges on their actions during lockdown when people lost access to their own local libraries it becomes a letter vs spirit of the law thing to me personally. They broke the letter of the law, did they break the spirit of it? Was what they did immoral? The justice system isn’t perfect and as a society we continually refine and redefine our laws and have been forever. The state of Louisiana just signed a law into effect that requires poster sized copies of the Ten Commandments be posted in every classroom, kindergarten through college. If someone breaks that law, what side of history will they be on?
If unlimited lending was something that IA was doing all the time, I can see it both ways. If it was for a few months during lockdown, then I think the court got this wrong.
FaceDeer@fedia.io 1 week ago
The Wikipedia article explains and has sources.
Oisteink@feddit.nl 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week ago
That is what happens though, it’s clear about that.