They sued the Internet Archive for doing the exact same thing libraries do, and only with books that are not in print. Much like why you trust Wikipedia over the EFF, why you think that's something worth defending I don't know.
Libraries do not make unlimited copies of books so everyone can check it out at the same time without wait. Obviously the EFF doesn't want to admit its client did that because it destroys their case, but that's what the judge found the IA stupidly did.
Libraries use CDL all the time.
Libraries buy licenses to do so from the publishers, but that's unrelated to what I said.
I'm saying the judge found that IA violated its own CDL, so even if its interpretation of the law was correct, the IA would still be liable.
So why aren't they suing libraries for doing those "exact same things?" Why target the IA specifically, and not other libraries?
Could it be that the IA did not in fact do the "exact same thing" as libraries?
why you think that's something worth defending I don't know.
I am not "defending" the publishers. They are the villains here. I think current copyright laws are insanely overreaching and have long ago lost the plot of what they were originally intended for.
This is like a horror movie where there's a slasher hiding in the house and the dumb protagonists say "let's split up to find him more quickly", and I'm shouting at the idiot who's going down into the dark basement alone. The slasher is the publishing companies and the idiot going down the stairs is the IA. It's entirely justified to shout at them for being an idiot and recommend that they just run away, without being accused of "defending" the slasher.
So why aren’t they suing libraries for doing those “exact same things?”
Because publishers suing every public library in America would take a lot of time since it would involve every separate library system and also wouldn't exactly look good from a PR perspective.
You really don't have a good eye for the obvious.
Exactly, it'd be bad PR. I've argued this before in other threads, the publishers don't want to destroy IA. They just want IA to not flagrantly interfere with their business. They only sued IA when IA poked them too hard for them to ignore.
You may note that the settlement agreement they reached with IA lets IA continue to host books that the publishers haven't released as ebooks themselves, for example. Even now they're not being as harsh as they could be.
As the husband of a librarian who is now a library administrator, you cannot be more wrong. If publishing companies had a way of shutting down all the public libraries in America or charge everyone a per-lending fee, they would absolutely do that. They hate public libraries. They are as hostile to them as they can be without getting lawyers involved.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
No, I "know" no such thing. How do you "know" that?
In fact, I think the IA wouldn't have been sued if they'd continued to keep a low profile and stuck to the common practice of limiting their "digital lending" to one copy at a time. I don't "know" it because you can't know the future, only predict it, but I think that's most likely given how many other libraries get away with exactly that same practice and how IA itself was getting away with it for years before they blew it.
So yeah, that makes what you said a lie by your own admission.
You are imagining that I "know" I'm lying, and then using that to claim that I'm lying "by my own admission." This is so blatantly fallacious it's actually kind of remarkable.
You were lying by admission because you admitted you knew that it was a window of opportunity to sue them for something unrelated to that.
Please read more carefully before having such silly knee-jerk reactions.
They sued the Internet Archive for doing the exact same thing libraries do, and only with books that are not in print. Much like why you trust Wikipedia over the EFF, why you think that's something worth defending I don't know.
Libraries do not make unlimited copies of books so everyone can check it out at the same time without wait. Obviously the EFF doesn't want to admit its client did that because it destroys their case, but that's what the judge found the IA stupidly did.
Libraries use CDL all the time.
Libraries buy licenses to do so from the publishers, but that's unrelated to what I said.
I'm saying the judge found that IA violated its own CDL, so even if its interpretation of the law was correct, the IA would still be liable.
So why aren't they suing libraries for doing those "exact same things?" Why target the IA specifically, and not other libraries?
Could it be that the IA did not in fact do the "exact same thing" as libraries?
I am not "defending" the publishers. They are the villains here. I think current copyright laws are insanely overreaching and have long ago lost the plot of what they were originally intended for.
This is like a horror movie where there's a slasher hiding in the house and the dumb protagonists say "let's split up to find him more quickly", and I'm shouting at the idiot who's going down into the dark basement alone. The slasher is the publishing companies and the idiot going down the stairs is the IA. It's entirely justified to shout at them for being an idiot and recommend that they just run away, without being accused of "defending" the slasher.
Because publishers suing every public library in America would take a lot of time since it would involve every separate library system and also wouldn't exactly look good from a PR perspective.
You really don't have a good eye for the obvious.
Exactly, it'd be bad PR. I've argued this before in other threads, the publishers don't want to destroy IA. They just want IA to not flagrantly interfere with their business. They only sued IA when IA poked them too hard for them to ignore.
You may note that the settlement agreement they reached with IA lets IA continue to host books that the publishers haven't released as ebooks themselves, for example. Even now they're not being as harsh as they could be.
As the husband of a librarian who is now a library administrator, you cannot be more wrong. If publishing companies had a way of shutting down all the public libraries in America or charge everyone a per-lending fee, they would absolutely do that. They hate public libraries. They are as hostile to them as they can be without getting lawyers involved.
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.
See above re: PR.
Also, libraries cross that line all the time.
https://www.nypl.org/research
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.
Are you referring me to the Digital Research Books beta?
Where on the NYPL can I download unlimited copies of books that are currently in print from these major publishers under non-free licenses?
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.
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.
Again from Wikipedia:
And from the section on the settlement reached:
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.
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?
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:
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.
No, I "know" no such thing. How do you "know" that?
In fact, I think the IA wouldn't have been sued if they'd continued to keep a low profile and stuck to the common practice of limiting their "digital lending" to one copy at a time. I don't "know" it because you can't know the future, only predict it, but I think that's most likely given how many other libraries get away with exactly that same practice and how IA itself was getting away with it for years before they blew it.
You are imagining that I "know" I'm lying, and then using that to claim that I'm lying "by my own admission." This is so blatantly fallacious it's actually kind of remarkable.
You were lying by admission because you admitted you knew that it was a window of opportunity to sue them for something unrelated to that.
Please read more carefully before having such silly knee-jerk reactions.