Archive.org

[thewitt]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

archive.org honors robot.txt. Don't want them to access your pages? Use it.

http://www.robotstxt.org/robotstxt.html

Don't believe it. All my sites have included exclusions and requested removal. No dice.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by thewitt

Don't believe it. All my sites have included exclusions and requested removal. No dice.

Shrug... Every site that I've been involved with has had the robot.txt honored.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by thewitt

Don't believe it. All my sites have included exclusions and requested removal. No dice.

Maybe you're special.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I don't think it's my responsibility to check. I think it's archive.org's responsibility. If a reputable site like that offers me the chance to download material I'm interested in, that's good enough for me.

That is certainly the case in my country (and the same applies to counterfeit goods - you mention in your later post clothes as an example), it is the responsibility of the "commercial" supplier. It is also not illegal to possess them as a result of such a transaction.

***EDIT: It is also not illegal to cross the border with the likes of counterfeit material as long as it is not for the purpose of commercial sale e.g. one can import a counterfeit dress or "Rolex" watch, for example, but trying to import twenty would expose them to confiscation as they would be assumed to be for commercial use.***

It is not something I have had any need to look at much with respect to other countries but documentation I have seen regarding negotiations for a trade agreement infer that the above approach is widely held among nations

But no doubt there are countries that are exceptions, and there are certainly people who try to protect rights by wrongly trying to put the fear of God into the end customer.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Catlady

When you go shopping at a B&M store and see something with a designer label, say, do you think it's up to you to check whether it's counterfeit merchandise?

To give Harry his due, here's one difference: It's extremely unlikely I would know that clothing I was buying had an intellectual property issue. However, I do know that if I see a mainstream book, first published after 1963 (no copyright renewal needed), at archive.org site openlibrary.org, there is an intellectual property issue. And, if published between 1923 and 1963, there probably is an intellectual property issue.

Of course, there are big differences the other way. I'm sure there is case law on counterfeit clothing. There isn't, AFAIK, on precisely what archive.org does. It may seem obvious to some that the legal arguments archive.org might make (non-profit, educational, print book held during borrowing period, EPUB's are full of errors and missing material, benefits visually impaired etc.) would be losers in court. But I don't know enough law to make it obvious to me.

Isn't it likely that some of the hundreds of US state and local libraries endorsing OpenLibrary (and many Canadian and Australian libraries as well) ran this by their house attorney and were told that there's a good possibility of archive.org/openlibary.org being upheld in a US court?

US fair use is broader than equivalents in other countries. One of the factors in US fair use law is the effect of the use upon the potential market. By never, to my knowledge, offering proofread EPUBs, archive.org greatly reduces the impact of what they are doing on publishers.

The fact that they are non-profit, as noted in my last link, will be a big plus for them if they ever are taken to court.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

...To give Harry his due, here's one difference: It's extremely unlikely I would know that clothing I was buying had an intellectual property issue. However, I do know that if I see a mainstream book, first published after 1963 (no copyright renewal needed), at archive.org site openlibrary.org, there is an intellectual property issue. And, if published between 1923 and 1963, there probably is an intellectual property issue...

Well, maybe 0.01% would know (am guessing, but it is going to be very small - try walking down the street and asking people at random what the copyright time period is) of the population would understand the possible copyright implications regarding a book that they saw on, say, archive.org. And only a very small percentage would have the ability to recognise counterfeit clothing, for example, (customs at the border, and sometimes even the design holder find doing so difficult) so, in my view, CatLady's comparison stands.

The dates you mention have no relevance to me (or indeed most of the world ) whatsoever as I do not live in the USA, however taking your claim that for yourself if you saw a mainstream book first published after 1963 you would know "there is an intellectual property issue", I know, even just offhand without looking further, of a number of books first published after that date where the copyright holder has voluntarily relinquished their rights and are available on public web sites.

So, in fact you will not know unless you personally research the copyright status of each book. I suspect the law does not require that of you (it certainly does not in my own country).

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

Well, maybe 0.01% would know (am guessing, but it is going to be very small - try walking down the street and asking people at random what the copyright time period is) of the population would understand the possible copyright implications regarding a book that they saw on, say, archive.org. And only a very small percentage would have the ability to recognise counterfeit clothing, for example, (customs at the border, and sometimes even the design holder find doing so difficult) so, in my view, CatLady's comparison stands.

The dates you mention have no relevance to me (or indeed most of the world ) whatsoever as I do not live in the USA, however taking your claim that for yourself if you saw a mainstream book first published after 1963 you would know "there is an intellectual property issue", I know, even just offhand without looking further, of a number of books first published after that date where the copyright holder has voluntarily relinquished their rights and are available on public web sites.

So, in fact you will not know unless you personally research the copyright status of each book. I suspect the law does not require that of you (it certainly does not in my own country).

US is 70 years with some exceptions. So even then one book published in say 1897 could be public and another could still be copyrighted.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

US is 70 years with some exceptions. So even then one book published in say 1897 could be public and another could still be copyrighted.

In the US anything that was an authorized publication prior to 1923 is in the PD.

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

US is 70 years with some exceptions.

With many exceptions, actually, and everything published before 1923 is PD. Here's one quick summary:

All copyrightable works published in the United States before 1923 are in the public domain;[18] works created before 1978 but not published until recently may be protected until 2047.[19] For works that received their copyright before 1978, a renewal had to be filed in the work's 28th year with the Copyright Office for its term of protection to be extended. The need for renewal was eliminated by the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992, but works that had already entered the public domain by non-renewal did not regain copyright protection. Therefore, works published before 1964 that were not renewed are in the public domain.

Source

In addition, the 1994 GATT actually removed public domain status from some foreign works that were already PD in the United States.

Stories and articles initially or exclusively published in magazines prior to 1977 but after 1923 without the (at that time required) copyright notice fell into public domain. Stories and articles initially or exclusively published before 1963 and were not renewed, ditto. (I specify "initially or exclusively" to rule out those for which existing copyrights would have been in effect.)

An entire swath of film history is dotted with films that fell into public domain due to missing or incorrect copyright notice. (The Byrne Convention removed this requirement, but not until 1989.)

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash

With many exceptions, actually, and everything published before 1923 is PD. Here's one quick summary:



Source

In addition, the 1994 GATT actually removed public domain status from some foreign works that were already PD in the United States.

Stories and articles initially or exclusively published in magazines prior to 1977 but after 1923 without the (at that time required) copyright notice fell into public domain. Stories and articles initially or exclusively published before 1963 and were not renewed, ditto. (I specify "initially or exclusively" to rule out those for which existing copyrights would have been in effect.)

An entire swath of film history is dotted with films that fell into public domain due to missing or incorrect copyright notice. (The Byrne Convention removed this requirement, but not until 1989.)

That explains F. Scott Fitzgerald. Thanks.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

The dates you mention have no relevance to me (or indeed most of the world ) whatsoever as I do not live in the USA, however taking your claim that for yourself if you saw a mainstream book first published after 1963 you would know "there is an intellectual property issue", I know, even just offhand without looking further, of a number of books first published after that date where the copyright holder has voluntarily relinquished their rights and are available on public web sites.

So, in fact you will not know unless you personally research the copyright status of each book. I suspect the law does not require that of you (it certainly does not in my own country).

Are you saying that the law in whatever country it is that you live in allows you to download anything you find on any web site without having to concern yourself about whether or not it's in the public domain in your country? I find that quite remarkable. Even if everything on archive.org were in the U.S. public domain, that certainly doesn't mean that a particular item is in the public domain in a different country.

[eschwartz]

You can find that as remarkable as you like, however it is still true.

I believe there are a number of countries that completely absolve a downloader of all legal responsibility, even if they are searching for Game of Thrones episodes on The Pirate Bay.

Even in the United States and the UK, I don't believe a court would find someone guilty if it is conceivable that the downloader in question thought the download was in the public domain.
It's probably technically illegal, but no one would ever get punished for it.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Even in the United States and the UK, I don't believe a court would find someone guilty if it is conceivable that the downloader in question thought the download was in the public domain.
It's probably technically illegal, but no one would ever get punished for it.

"A court wouldn't bother about it" is not the same thing as "the law does not make it your responsibility to check", however. Yes, I'm well aware that there are a few countries in which personal downloading of pirated material is legal.

There have been numerous instances of people being prosecuted for personal downloads of pirated material. Movie studios in particular are pretty enthusiastic about going after downloaders.

[darryl]

The Australian law on this subject is embodied in our Copyright Act of 1968. There is little doubt that if you download an ebook still subject to Copyright without the permission of the Copyright owner than you have infringed the Copyright by the act of downloading it. Your copy is an infringing copy. This will not normally be a criminal offence but the Copyright owner can sue you. The question is do you have a good defence. Sub-section 115(3) is the provision relevant to this situation but provides only a partial defence. Basically, you will not be liable to damages if you can establish that you were not aware at the time of the infringement and had no reasonable grounds for suspecting at that time that you were infringing copyright. You may still be liable to account for any profits (not really relevant if you downloaded one copy for personal use), and may or may not incur legal costs. Section 116 allows an action for conversion or detention with a similar defence.

The uncertain part is the no reasonable grounds for suspecting. I would suggest that when you download using a torrent from the Pirate Bay or probably most other torrent sites, this defence will be difficult if not impossible to make out. But archive.org? A non-profit with a laudable public purpose?

I have not researched whether there are any relevant judicial decisions on this point, and am going to give my opinion based only on the wording. Don't rely on it. It is not legal advice. But I don't think you have a general duty to check that everything you download from archive.org is not covered by Copyright. On the other hand, something about a particular item may make it reasonable for you to check. Certainly very recent material like the latest new movie or book you download at your peril. The site is, after all, an archive, so one would not normally expect to see recent commercial products available on such a site. However, is it reasonable to expect every visitor to the site to check if an older work, often a well-known classic, is in the public domain in your country? Personally, I don't believe so, though I suspect this may change depending on what warnings the site gives and their placement.

Unlike Harry, I can't say I care very much. I would never encourage people to breach Copyright laws, but they have become in practice very bad laws. Copyright lengths are obscene, and of no public benefit. In fact this doesn't fulfill the laudable goal of encouraging new works because the actual author (or other creators) seldom receive any benefit. In fact, Copyright and other Intellectual Property laws, whilst they do some good, are also doing substantial harm in many areas. It is time for a fundamental review, assuming this is even possible given the vested interests involved.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by darryl

The uncertain part is the no reasonable grounds for suspecting. I would suggest that when you download using a torrent from the Pirate Bay or probably most other torrent sites, this defence will be difficult if not impossible to make out. But archive.org? A non-profit with a laudable public purpose?

I really don't think that the fact that it's "a non-profit with a laudable public purpose" makes a difference. There are numerous works that are perfectly legally held on "archive.org", being in the US public domain, which would infringe copyright if you or I were to download them. Australian and British copyright law are not the same as US law. As you know, anything published prior to 1923 is automatically in the US public domain, but that's not the case in Australia or the UK. Early works by long-lived authors can, therefore, be legally downloaded by people in the US, but not by you or me.

If you were talking about a site such as PG Australia, then you would have a reasonable claim that it was their responsibility to check that the works they were offering were legal for people in Australia to download, but that certainly doesn't hold true for a site in a country with entirely different copyright rules, such as the US.