this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2024
565 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

59402 readers
3048 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
565
Share Your Story: The Impact of Losing Access to 500,000 Books (docs.google.com)
submitted 5 months ago by ToxicWaste@lemm.ee to c/technology@lemmy.world
54 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io -5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

So why aren't they? If libraries are doing exactly what IA is doing, why not sue them too? The judge issued a summary judgement in their favor so it's pretty open-and-shut, isn't it?

It's because the libraries know where the line is and they're careful not to cross it. IA jumped merrily across the line and shouted about it from the rooftops.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

So why aren’t they?

See above re: PR.

Also, libraries cross that line all the time.

https://www.nypl.org/research

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io -5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Exactly, PR. The IA was fine as long as they weren't flagrantly bragging about how they were letting everyone download as many copies of everything as they wanted. If they'd stuck to their original pattern (shared with libraries) of only letting one digital copy out at a time then the publishers would have grumbled and not done anything about it because it would have been bad PR to attack IA under those conditions.

Also, libraries cross that line all the time. https://www.nypl.org/research

Are you referring me to the Digital Research Books beta?

All the materials in Digital Research Books Beta are completely free to read and most of them you can download and keep, with no library card required. The books are either in the public domain, with no restrictions on your use of them, or under Creative Commons licences that may have some conditions, but only on redistribution or adaptation.

Where on the NYPL can I download unlimited copies of books that are currently in print from these major publishers under non-free licenses?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

that are currently in print

The IA did not have books that were currently in print and they also told publishers that if they found any that were in print that were uploaded, they would be removed.

or under Creative Commons licences that may have some conditions, but only on redistribution or adaptation.

Too bad that U.S. copyright law doesn't recognize CCLs or you'd have a point. They are violating copyright law by allowing them to be downloaded an unlimited number times and saying they are under a CCL is irrelevant. On top of that, the creator may grant a CCL but a publisher can claim they own the rights and then it is up to the NYPL to decide who is right until it goes to court, so even suggesting that somehow a CCL makes it legal doesn't actually mean the CCL itself is granted by someone who doesn't actually own the rights to grant it.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io -3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The IA did not have books that were currently in print and they also told publishers that if they found any that were in print that were uploaded, they would be removed.

Again from Wikipedia:

The 127 publishers' books in the suit are also available as ebooks from the publishers.

And from the section on the settlement reached:

On August 11, 2023, the parties reached a negotiated judgment. The agreement prescribes a permanent injunction against the Internet Archive preventing it from distributing the plaintiffs' books, except those for which no e-book is currently available,[3] as well as an undisclosed payment to the plaintiffs.

If you're going to accuse me of lying I would appreciate if you took a little more care to ensure your own statements were truthful.

Too bad that U.S. copyright law doesn't recognize CCLs or you'd have a point.

That's a flat "what." From me. Creative Commons licenses depend on copyright to function. In what way does US copyright law "not recognize" Creative Commons licenses?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It does not recognize CCLs because there is no legal mechanism in place to recognize them. They depend on copyright to function in the sense that copyright allows them to function in the nebulous grey area in which they exist and it hasn't been challenged yet.

Because, again, terrible PR.

Also, I accused you of lying when you said this:

The lawsuit was the result of bear-poking. It’s a result of their “National Emergency Library” that they briefly rolled out in 2020 where they took all the limits off of their “lending” and let people download as many copies as they wanted. Was “legitimate academic study” not possible before, with the old limits that weren’t provoking lawsuits?

Because the lawsuit wasn't the result of that, the lawsuit created a window of opportunity for publishers to do something they wanted to for years and sue them for something unrelated to that. Which you claim you knew. It's victim-blaming because I'm sure you also know that they would have been sued eventually regardless of what they did or did not do.

So yeah, that makes what you said a lie by your own admission.