Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
pie_flavor | on: The Internet Archive has lost its appeal in Hachette vs. Internet Archive
What you describe as lending a digital copy, is making new copies. As a matter of engineering fact, the bytes were copied from one location to another; as a matter of black-letter law, that is making a copy in the sense that it is copyright infringement to do so without a license. That IA 'controlled' it to have only one outstanding copy at a time in hands other than theirs does not make it legal. The carveout saying libraries can make three copies does not cover them making hundreds.

If IA would like five dozen copies to be morally equivalent to one copy as long as they ask each person who received one to swear they deleted it before IA makes another, they can call their congressman and ask them to propose a copyright law amendment. They did not do this, and instead just knowingly violated the law repeatedly. Wailing about how libraries won't exist in the future is silly, because it just takes reforming the law to fix this, but IA seemed to be under the impression that as long as the rules would one day be amended, they could act as though they're already amended that way today.

codedokode | parent | next
Let's say we have a device that allows to view book pages over Internet without persistently storing it in any tangible medium (like a memory card). I.e. without "fixing" it permanently where "fixing" is defined in 17 US Code 101. And we use it to view books from a remote server. In this case it seems like we are not making a "copy"; we simply let user watch book stored on our server. So this should be legal?
pie_flavor | root | parent | next
As in, is it somehow different when the copy that gets transmitted to the user's computer is encoded images of the pages instead of encoded text of the pages? No. You are using the word 'view' to describe receiving a copy. Again: It doesn't matter whether the UX presents it as a copy. The data factually is copied, and that's all that matters.
codedokode | root | parent
The copy is something that "fixes" the work permanently. The device I am describing is not "fixing" anything in a tangible medium.

Replace Internet with a video cable, and the device with a CRT TV. No copy is produced in this case.

pie_flavor | root | parent
This is true. If the copy is only "transitory", it does not count.
SAI_Peregrinus | root | parent
That hypothetical device does not exist, it's not relevant here.
TrinaryWorksToo | root | parent | next
A live camera feed and IA's page turner exists. Would live streaming the feed work?
SAI_Peregrinus | root | parent
No, that's making a copy. Several copies, really, and distributing at least one of them.
TrinaryWorksToo | root | parent
How about I use a mirror and a lens and fancy fiber optics to do the same thing with no computer involved?
alexey-salmin | root | parent
It does exist, it's called FPV arm robot. Drive around the library, take books from shelves, open them, turn pages, read.

Would be curious to try this because the "ebooks don't wear" argument won't apply.

immibis | root | parent | next
There was a company that allowed customers to rent DVD players, robotically inserted disks into them and transmitted their video output over the internet.

This was ruled illegal.

The letter of the law isn't the real law; the real law is that you must pay money to large media corporations or else. We now have two instances.

SAI_Peregrinus | root | parent
That doesn't solve the fact that the robot can't do the reading for the user. It takes a picture (makes a copy of the page), then sends a copy of that data to some remote user (distributes an infringing copy).
_kidlike | parent
if you wanna get into byte copying, from a legal view, isn't also copying from disk to memory a copy of the book then ?
codedokode | root | parent | next
The law says that copy is something that is "fixed" on a tangible medium. DRAM might not fall under that definition.
loading story #41461899
anonymousab | root | parent
Yes, and that's why running an executable can technically be copyright infringement. This came up in some anticheat lawsuits.
loading story #41464462