Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
msla | on: The Internet Archive has lost its appeal in Hachette vs. Internet Archive
The effect on authors is the same: A book is circulated multiple times after being bought once.
doctorpangloss | parent | next
Are you suggesting that the law reflects an entrenched, emotional celebration of an antique, traditional notion of a library, and not something rational and consistent about lending, copyright and the economics of writing? Apostasy! I want this conversation to only be strictly about what the case law says, so that I may tell you about it “again” and again!
tptacek | root | parent
No, the problem is that the preceding analysis is a category error, in that it assumes the law has a purpose of minimizing the circulation of an individual book. It does not, which is why traditional libraries weren't threatened by it.
xdennis | root | parent | next
> in that it assumes the law has a purpose of minimizing the circulation of an individual book

That's exactly what it's about. Publishers lost the battle of banning libraries, but have won and keep winning everything about digital books.

The end effect is that people have fewer liberties when it comes to digital things. Authors don't gain much. All the profit goes to the publishers.

account42 | root | parent
And the next step is to deprecate and stop publishing physical prints at all, which is already mostly the case with other kinds of media. Then you won't just have less rights with digital things but less rights period.
doctorpangloss | root | parent
I don’t know, it doesn’t take a genius or a law degree to understand that maintaining a one to one ratio of physical copies to digitally lent books is the same shit as a regular library but more convenient. It stands to reason that the law shouldn’t preclude technological advances that make libraries more convenient. The reason traditional libraries aren’t threatened by the law is cultural. There are states that ban books my dude, it’s all cultural.

I wonder why judges are anti-library. Although I can understand why they are generally anti-technology: the law school people have a lot of beefs, and beefs with the compsci people rank highly. And before you start telling me all the reasons why “beefs” aren’t a central part of the character of judges and therefore law in this country, you should maybe read more about guys like Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

_factor | root | parent | next
It’s apparent to me that the law has jumbled a bunch of archaic concepts of what “copying” means in order to transfigure the argument into a technically obscured realm.

A library allows one person to read one book at a time. A digital library doing the same while using technology to make lending more efficient accomplishes the exact same goal.

We’re using precedent to override common sense and prevent digital libraries from effectively existing under the guise of protection.

tptacek | root | parent | next
Judges aren't anti-library. People care a lot less about "compsci" culture than "compsci" people think they do. We simply aren't that important.
loading story #41450765
loading story #41464575
account42 | root | parent | next
> I wonder why judges are anti-library.

Is that really suprising considering the general copyright climate? Do you link libraries would be allowed to exist if they were conceived of today?

I'd say probably not - but then "AI" seems to not be facing the same rules as regular people so perhaps if libraries could find a way to become "big" fast enough they could have a chance.

| root | parent
{"deleted":true,"id":41451425,"parent":41450632,"time":1725487935,"type":"comment"}
tptacek | parent
That's not how the law works. Again: this is a copyright case.
JoshTriplett | root | parent | next
I don't think people here are confused about how the law works. I think many people here feel the law shouldn't work that way.

Stating it explicitly: while the NEL was dubious, CDL should have been 100% legal, and it's a massive disappointment to see it ruled against.

tptacek | root | parent | next
Maybe a case with a better fact pattern (for instance: lending only books without competing publisher epubs) might have had a better chance, but I think people are getting themselves tied up in knots about IA's intent, which is just one factor in a fair-use analysis. The law cares deeply about copies, not about circulation or access.

Further: it seems weird to blame judges for applying what is in fact very straightforward law. Seems like your problem is with Congress!

JoshTriplett | root | parent
Fair use is not "very straightforward law", and is deliberately a fuzzy line; I do in fact think CDL should have passed a fair-use analysis. Separately I also think the law should improve.
tptacek | root | parent
In which part of this case were the judges required to stretch at all? The decision is conveniently broken down across the 4-part fair use test.
loading story #41451604
Ensorceled | root | parent
> I don't think people here are confused about how the law works. I think many people here feel the law shouldn't work that way.

No, a LOT of people in these very threads are arguing that the CDL IS 100% legal and that the ruling is ... well, many things.

doctorpangloss | root | parent
“The only moral laws are my laws.”
pessimizer | root | parent
Who is this a quote from, and who is talking about "moral laws?"