Internet Archive sued by big publishers

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by MarjaE

Ah, so they are liable because the law is even more of an ass...

Yes, the law is an ass because they insist authors get paid so they can make a living. Or at least buy a pizza once in a while as a reward for writing a book worth reading.

Those evil evil authors, wishing to get paid.

Again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuLr9HG2ASs

[Paperbackstash]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Yes, the law is an ass because they insist authors get paid so they can make a living. Or at least buy a pizza once in a while as a reward for writing a book worth reading.

Those evil evil authors, wishing to get paid.

Again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuLr9HG2ASs

Agreed. And large house and small house publishers need their money too for putting in the royalities, production, shipping, promotion and taking a gamble they may not get their money back with the books they're hoping for. Internet Archive is still surprising me with their stance on this

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Quoth

You can't buy a DVD and offer digital loans without a per loan royalty and/or a contract with the rights holder. Same with ebooks.
It's not remotely the same as buying a CD, DVD, ebook and changing the format for your own gadget, even in countries where that is technically illegal due to DRM circumvention, no individual would be sued for personal use. But websites or operators "sharing" digital copies by any means and any conversion have always been successfully prosecuted or sued. It's only the level of damages that's ever in contention.

Indeed, personal use is a different creature.
Personal use transcoding hasn't been litigated in the US because all the cases litigated (and won) have been for *distribution*. Napster, pirate websites, etc...

That is the violation, distributing somebody else's material.

Personal use is different because it's generally understood that few people would pay for an MP3 or ISO file of a CD or DVD they already own, when tbey can easily convert what they already paid for, so the transcoded version isn't often substituting for a new sale.

Personal use only triggers one or two of the four tests, depending on the judge, and it usually is treated as "de minimis", too small to bother the courts with, which is not the case with the IA.

[MarjaE]

The existing law doesn't simply pay authors, editors, and others involved.

It reaches back decades. It affects scanned books where the originals are out of print and better-quality e-books are nonexistent. It seems to affect potential readers and potential lenders the most when it affects the authors and editors the least or not at all.

At times, I've ended up buying hard copies, because it's cheaper than the publisher's scanned ebook copies. At times they don't have any ebook copies.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by MarjaE

The existing law doesn't simply pay authors, editors, and others involved.

It reaches back decades. It affects scanned books where the originals are out of print and better-quality e-books are nonexistent. It seems to affect potential readers and potential lenders the most when it affects the authors and editors the least or not at all.

At times, I've ended up buying hard copies, because it's cheaper than the publisher's scanned ebook copies. At times they don't have any ebook copies.

Yes.
And?

Copyright grants the right to control distribution. That includes the right to sell and not-sell and how much, if anything, to charge.

Wanting something does not confer the right to get it.
It is neither a civil nor human right. Throwing tantrums because you can't get something is childish and something well-raised kids get over by the time they hit grade school.

Books are not essential.
Food, shelter, health care are.

If IA wants to improve the human condition they should focus on those essentials. There's no shortage of need there.

[MarjaE]

Social knowledge and discussion benefit us all.

The rationale for these monopolies was to reward authors and publishers for contributing to knowledge and discussion, tolerating the harms of monopolies and their enforcement in return for the benefits of more writing, wider publication, and eventually additions to the public domain. If and when important works aren't available, then the system isn't working as it's supposed to. So yes the absence or the excessive costs of some reference books are a relevant critique. Of course we have to expect some gaps. But with digital distribution there don't have to be as many gaps as before.

The rationale was not that these monopolies granted a right to these monopolies.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by MarjaE

Social knowledge and discussion benefit us all.

The rationale for these monopolies was to reward authors and publishers for contributing to knowledge and discussion, tolerating the harms of monopolies and their enforcement in return for the benefits of more writing, wider publication, and eventually additions to the public domain. If and when important works aren't available, then the system isn't working as it's supposed to. So yes the absence or the excessive costs of some reference books are a relevant critique. Of course we have to expect some gaps. But with digital distribution there don't have to be as many gaps as before.

The rationale was not that these monopolies granted a right to these monopolies.

Making something digital makes it fair prey for piracy?
That is the argument of the "bad guy" publishers who don't want ebooks at all.

Traditional pirates used to justify their scanning by saying the ebooks couldn't be purchased, now they can be purchased all over and *that* justifies it?

(And that last sentence needs editing. As written it is semantic nonsense. it is the consititution that grants the copyright to the distribution monopoly, not the monopoly itself.)

The constitution grants the copyright to encourage *creation*, not consumption. It's in the constitution because paying creators is *that* important.

In case you haven't noticed, for decades there have been thousands of galented writers who stopped creating because print publishing didn't justify the effort.
Today's ebook tech is allowing many more creators to get paid but if the IA rationalization prevails they too will quit.

Tomorrow's books are funded by today's sales.
And today's sales are moving to digital. Print pay is inadequate. Just ask the autbor associations.

But the IA is clearly a follower of HAGAR THE HORRIBLE:

O words of love, O words divine!
The silver thought, the golden line!
Of all men's words, there's none so fine,
As these three words: 'I've got mine!'

Hagar the Horrible

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Indeed, personal use is a different creature.
Personal use transcoding hasn't been litigated in the US because all the cases litigated (and won) have been for *distribution*. Napster, pirate websites, etc.

Sony Betamax (Sony vs. MCA/Universal/Disney) case would likely be precedent. As I remember, Sony won, lost on appeal and then won in the US Supreme Court.

[MarjaE]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Making something digital makes it fair prey for piracy?
That is the argument of the "bad guy" publishers who don't want ebooks at all.

Where are you getting that?

(And that last sentence needs editing. As written it is semantic nonsense. it is the consititution that grants the copyright to the distribution monopoly, not the monopoly itself.)

You wrote:

Copyright grants the right to control distribution.

I replied:

The rationale was not that these monopolies granted a right to these monopolies.

[Quoth]

Betamax: And you can't make copies of DVDs or BD to loan them out, not even if free. You can't play them in public without a suitable licence/contract either. The Open Library was always wrong. Misuse and unfairness in existing copyright laws is no argument, that never works in court. You can lobby to reform laws, not unilaterally break them because you feel they aren't fair.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by MarjaE

Where are you getting that?
:

That it is nonsense to say a monopoly cannot grant a monopoly when the constituition grants the monopoly.
Period.

The monopoly on distribution is sanction by the founding compact of the nation.
There's no handwaving involved, other than the IA pretending that wanting something entitles them to getting it.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I'm not a fan of either. I have never read a book by Patterson or Clancy. I really would prefer they don't turn their names into brands. But if they are going to do it, at least both seem honest. Even things like Tom Clancy's Op Center or Tom Clancy's Net Force credit the actual author*

Now V.C. Andrews, who died in 1985 but has continued to put out V.C. Andrews books, that's dishonest.

*There was a regrettable time where there was a Tom Clancy 'house name' David Michaels. The 'Tom Clancy's' brand didn't start that way and it's not that way now.

The name Franklin W. Dixon (Hardy Boys) is a house name.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Sorry. Can you clarify what you mean?

Tom Clancy didn't write the Tom Clancy's Op Center series, or Net Force or any of the novelizations of the Tom Clancy's video games. That is known and acknowledged.

But are you saying that he didn't write, say... the books published under his name from The Cardinal of the Kremlin onwards? If so, I don't buy it. From The Teeth of the Tiger forward, the 'co-author' is listed on the cover. Why would they do that if the books were already being ghost-written?

Same think for James Patterson. Why bother listing the co-author sometimes if all the books are ghost written anyway?

When the is no other author, James Patterson did write that book without someone else.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Sorry. Can you clarify what you mean?

Tom Clancy didn't write the Tom Clancy's Op Center series, or Net Force or any of the novelizations of the Tom Clancy's video games. That is known and acknowledged.

But are you saying that he didn't write, say... the books published under his name from The Cardinal of the Kremlin onwards? If so, I don't buy it. From The Teeth of the Tiger forward, the 'co-author' is listed on the cover. Why would they do that if the books were already being ghost-written?

Same think for James Patterson. Why bother listing the co-author sometimes if all the books are ghost written anyway?

There is no co-auth listed on the cover for The Teeth of the Tiger and there is no mention of Grant Blackwood anywhere in the eBook.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

There is no co-auth listed on the cover for The Teeth of the Tiger and there is no mention of Grant Blackwood anywhere in the eBook.

that one _really_ doesn't feel like Clancy wrote it