Archive.org, Google and Piracy

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by DNSB

Sheesh. Please try to stay somewhat in touch with reality. Where exactly are those schools going to get the books from? They were distributed to the students prior to spring break so the schools no longer have custody of them. So you would suggest that the schools should, in the middle of this crisis, be taking the time to order books for those students who buried their heads in the sand?

Not from IA, which is the subject of this thread.

How about sending some employees into the schools to retrieve the books and then setup a distribution point where parents could pick them up. It's the logical thing to do.

[MarjaE]

They're closing the schools to eliminate a vector. Going through the lockers, retrieving the books, and passing them out would create a vector.

In the meantime, there's a strike at Amazon, but this may be a good time to pick up books we've each been considering at Alibris, Smashwords, Google Books, DriveThroughRPG, or directly from their publishers.

[deleted]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Not from IA, which is the subject of this thread.

How about sending some employees into the schools to retrieve the books and then setup a distribution point where parents could pick them up. It's the logical thing to do.

I hesitate to wade back in...

There are millions of schools in the world. Sending teams in to collect books would be difficult to organise, not to mention impratical (don't students lock them in lockers?); coordinating to meet with parents is also difficult. And all of this is not consistent with "social distancing" etc.

If this isn't a scenario where a centralised source, which can be accessed via any location (i.e. the internet) makes sense, what is?

Does that sound reasonable?

It seems to me that the beef is mostly about something else (the means by which they came into possession of some of their resources), but the issues are getting conflated into one - via the theory that this is all part of IAs longstanding agenda to destroy copyright.

If this theory is accurate, what will happen after the pandemic? Will the library find some excuse to remain without waiting lists? (I don't think so). Or will the damage have already been done? How so?

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

How about sending some employees into the schools to retrieve the books and then setup a distribution point where parents could pick them up. It's the logical thing to do.

First off, since you show yourself as being in the metro Seattle area, I find it hard to believe that you have not noticed the covid-19 pandemic and the changes that it is triggering.

In light of that, I have to ask if I am understanding you correctly? You expect the school district to send school board employees—most of whom are supposed to be working from home or just staying home—into the schools with the likelihood that over half the lockers are going to need the locks cut off (*) so we can then remove the books from them? The books that the students were supposed to take home with them to read over spring break and "forgot" at school?

And then you suggest that the district set a distribution point to distribute the books as "the logical thing to do"? A suggestion which is likely to have the district violating the rules on maximum size of any gathering and the guideline that any in-person gatherings of any size are discouraged?

Am I to believe that you are willing to fund the hours of work and the replacement locks out of your own pocket? I would prefer not to think about the likely lawsuits from the parents about violating their little darlings' privacy without due cause.

* The percentage of locks that would need to be cut off comes from the number of lockers that have had the school supplied lock replaced by a student purchased lock which then needs to be cut off during the summer locker clean out.

For every problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
—H. L. Mencken

Just BTW, as of April 1, 2020, the official number of covid-19 cases and deaths in Washington state were 5,984 cases and 247 deaths while British Columbia has 1066 cases and 25 deaths. This does not include the number of people who had mild cases and so were never tested or reported which is likely a much higher number.

"This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but with a whimper."
The Hollow Men—T. S. Eliott

[deleted]

It seems 3 of us have just thrown a question @tubemonkey (probably without being aware of the other comments). My laptop ran out of battery and switched off the first time I was writing my response!



So... back to the main issue (I think). IA means of acquiring.
Like I said, I first used IA to access bootlegged concerts (particularly Fugazi); I remember reading at the time that Ian Mackaye had approved. But I digress...)


I tend to agree that IA should be seeking publisher/authorial consent for the files in their possession. But on the other hand, IA is a nonprofit organisation and they're dealing with a ginormous number of files. Would what they do be possible if they had to fully vet every one of their "donations"?


And I wonder if regards to this a precedent has been set. Youtube routinely has copy right content uplodaded which is taken down upon request/threats. How is the IA different from this?

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

And takedown requests are often honored.

Which doesn't show a lot of confidence in their legality, does it?

[Quoth]

Youtube is a bad example as they have an incentive to allow all content (adverts) and checking video is harder than book texts. Also the IA content has been acquired over years, they KNOW which files THEY scanned from copyright books and which are out of copyright and which are legal bulk donations from the Universities.

They are NOW offering on Twitter to take down anything anyone objects to. That is the wrong way round. They pretty much know, unlike YouTube, what content is likely copyright. They can even automate checking their metadata with book catalogues! It should be opt in only.

Their public claims about Education and donated University content are misleading. They know they have been scanning copyright works themselves and acquiring them in bulk, not just individual "home pirates". This is an industrial scale attack on copyright going back over ten years, using the covid-19 crises to publicise their Open Library and relax the "lending rules". I hadn't realised the Open Library was actually piracy all along because they never got licences and never paid royalty. All the assumed to be public domain books are and have been available all along OUTSIDE the Open Library for direct download. Though some of that content is still copyright in the USA.
The USA led extension of copyright and the Google assumption of what is an "Orphan Work" are separate issues.
Unfairness doesn't give IA a free pass. Also many of these works are in print and copyright and not education.
It's not about Education, even though they make that claim.
This isn't covered by "fair use".

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Which doesn't show a lot of confidence in their legality, does it?

Nope.
But then, they have a history of ignoring DMCA takedown requests.

https://the-digital-reader.com/2018/...-dmca-notices/

If they truly thought they were in the right they would never take anything down. Again, they *know* they are in the wrong but count on authors not knowing of them or being unable to spend tbe *upfront* money to sue.

That they respond once in a while is because they know that sooner or later somebody will and find it safer to "humor" noise makers before the sheep wake up. And as Wikipedia's revenues quoted above show, there is good money for salaries in running non-profits on somebody else's money.

The Gates Foundation they ain't.

[Pajamaman]

Originally Posted by barryem

Now with the Corona virus they've taken an additional step of lending unlimited copies of those books. My guess is that won't be found to be legal but at the same time we're in the kind of situation that seems to justify it and my guess, and it's only that, is that they've decided they're willing to take a hit if that's found to be unlawful, which it probably will be. I applaud their courage in doing this.

During non-Corona virus times Archive.org is NOT a pirate site. They're a legitimate organization that does good work. Maybe that argument is different now. I'm not a lawyer so I don't really know. But the courts will decide that and I think we should avoid name calling till they do.

Barry

[elibrarian]

Originally Posted by barryem

During non-Corona virus times Archive.org is NOT a pirate site. Barry

Anyone can make an account at IA and start uploading whatever he or she sees fit. Been so all the time I've been using it. Some years ago I tried to point their administrators to a couple of files, but got an answer along the line of "… we don't interfere with user uploads …"

If you wan't a small sample, try this search on IA:

mediatype:Texts AND title:(EMB)

I very much doubt that these are out of copyright anywhere in the world - or "community texts".

In fact, IA don't really care - and if the uploaded materials are non-english, they probably wouldn't be able to find out, even if they did. (Heck, all the arabian thingies masquerading as "danish text" could be terror blueprints for all I know …)

Anyway, in my book that makes IA a pirate site/file sharing service - corona or no corona. (Or just a ginormous pile of uncurated junk.)

Regards,

Kim

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by barryem

As I understand it the Open Library is basing it's actions on a legal precedent that allows them to lend a single scan at a time of any book they own in paper form. It's been a while since I read it so I don't recall the exact details but they are basing what they're doing on existing law.

There are groups that are protesting and there are some lawsuits to determine if what they're doing really fits that law. Those cases are pending and until they're decided it's simply wrong to call their actions piracy. The law that they're basing it on does exist.

Now with the Corona virus they've taken an additional step of lending unlimited copies of those books. My guess is that won't be found to be legal but at the same time we're in the kind of situation that seems to justify it and my guess, and it's only that, is that they've decided they're willing to take a hit if that's found to be unlawful, which it probably will be. I applaud their courage in doing this.

During non-Corona virus times Archive.org is NOT a pirate site. They're a legitimate organization that does good work. Maybe that argument is different now. I'm not a lawyer so I don't really know. But the courts will decide that and I think we should avoid name calling till they do.

Barry

CDL is not a precedent, it's an untested legal argument that has not been tried in court

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

CDL is not a precedent, it's an untested legal argument that has not been tried in court

We can guess what comes next from this:

https://publishingperspectives.com/2...erspectives%29

The decade old operation amounted to shoplifting but the new expansion (finally!) made enough noise to ring alarm bells in Congress:

In a letter dated Wednesday (April 8), US Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) writes to the chief of the San Francisco-based Internet Archive, “I am deeply concerned that your ‘Library’ is operating outside the boundaries of the copyright law that Congress has enacted and alone has jurisdiction to amend.”
And with that, the nonprofit repository’s founding “digital librarian,” Brewster Kahle, now has attracted what can be read as a warning shot across the Archive’s pillared porch on Funston Avenue from the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property.

“I am not aware,” writes Sen. Tillis, “of any measure under copyright law that permits a user of copyrighted works to unilaterally create an emergency copyright act.”

Tillis is the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property. They're the ones that *write* the laws and routinely forward cases to the FBI.

And they don't need to *pay* lawyers to get a case to court so that defense just got blown away with the fig leaf. The letter also moves the infringement into certifiable *willfull* territory.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stat...t_infringement

That makes a lawsuit perfect for ambulance chaser class action suits and dragging in contributory outfits and indivduals. That might be enough to move some of the BPHs before the FBI rolls in.

Lots more at the source.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

We can guess what comes next from this:

https://publishingperspectives.com/2...erspectives%29

The decade old operation amounted to shoplifting but the new expansion (finally!) made enough noise to ring alarm bells in Congress:



Tillis is the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property. They're the ones that *write* the laws and routinely forward cases to the FBI.

And they don't need to *pay* lawyers to get a case to court so that defense just got blown away with the fig leaf. The letter also moves the infringement into certifiable *willfull* territory.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stat...t_infringement

That makes a lawsuit perfect for ambulance chaser class action suits and dragging in contributory outfits and indivduals. That might be enough to move some of the BPHs before the FBI rolls in.

Lots more at the source.

Ah, but the thing is, Kahle _wants_ a lawsuit because he expects to win. That is precisely why no one is giving him one.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Ah, but the thing is, Kahle _wants_ a lawsuit because he expects to win. That is precisely why no one is giving him one.

This wouldn't be a civil lawsuit by copyright holders but a federal case. Which opens with a raid. The FBI swoops in and grabs all associated computers *first*. They're evidence in an investigation, after all. That's their MO. They've done it before.

Besides, there is the *willful infringement* aspect.
The Senator is giving him fair warning that if he doesn't shut down the copyrighted serving, his *entire* operation will be shut down. Not just the "emergency library". And *he* will have to fight to get anything back online.

With the Senate having spoken, no court this side of the nutty ninth would rule for him. He has to be delusional to think he can fight (or even afford to fight) the FBI. The cost onus is now on him and his supporters.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

This wouldn't be a civil lawsuit by copyright holders but a federal case. Which opens with a raid. The FBI swoops in and grabs all associated computers *first*. They're evidence in an investigation, after all. That's their MO. They've done it before.

Besides, there is the *willful infringement* aspect.
The Senator is giving him fair warning that if he doesn't shut down the copyrighted serving, his *entire* operation will be shut down. Not just the "emergency library". And *he* will have to fight to get anything back online.

With the Senate having spoken, no court this side of the nutty ninth would rule for him. He has to be delusional to think he can fight (or even afford to fight) the FBI. The cost onus is now on him and his supporters.

You seem to be assuming the servers are even physically located where the FBI could seize them. The office computers sure. But that would only be a relatively minor inconvenience if the servers are not reachable.

As for the US Senate having spoken? This would be appear to be a single senator regardless of his subcommittee membership. Perhaps we should be looking at which lobbyists have been chatting with him?

I am somewhat amused by your rather naive belief in the power of the US Senate to influence the courts. Looking at past history, it would appear that quite a few judgments have gone against what the US House of Representative/US Senate/US President have desired.