this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2024
857 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
68599 readers
4551 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Which IA failed to do, which is why they got sued, and why they can’t lend those publishers’ books at all anymore.
I have no sympathy.
It's an asshole perspective that the IA dearly needs to listen to. Don't poke a bear when you have so much to lose. Doesn't matter if you're "in the right". The history books are littered with the corpses of righteous people.
Let the EFF handle the quixotic battles, it's what they're best at.
"No one should stand up for new rights. Don't rock the boat bro."
Your mindset is the road to a dictatorship.
What does the Mafia do? Show up, "Wow you got a lot of valuable things here Be a shame if someone broke them. Best listen to us."
The Mafia leverages potential of damage to existing value to extract cooperation.
I see very little difference here between the Mafia and the plaintiff.
IA definitely has too much to lose to afford picking fights. They got off lucky only having to remove the books. If they had been fined for many counts of copyright infringement, we could have had another library of Alexandria burning situation.
Yes, let's just completely misrepresent someone and pretend it's a quote! That's fun!
There are effective ways to challenge laws and to push for new rights. Loudly shouting "I don't care about your rules, just try and stop me!" was not an effective way for IA to try and do this.
Furthermore, IA constantly misrepresenting the problem and why they were sued in all their blog posts and press shit also does not help the cause.
It's a law in desperate need of abolishment, but this is not how you go about changing it.
This also was not an effective way for them to ensure these books would continue to be available digitally for the public. They could have quietly leaked batches of the content that only they had out to the ebook piracy groups in a staggered fashion to help obsfucate where it was coming from, then hosted a blog post telling people how to pirate ebooks and where, with a cover your ass disclaimer that everyone needs to abide by their local laws.
By any metric of success, the way they handled this set them up to lose from the start, and jeapordized one of the most important public resources in the current era. This would be understandable from some small operation of like 5 people trying to digitize shit, not from an organization as large and old as IA.
I'm not the person who said he had no sympathy, but that is why I have little sympathy about all this: They don't deserve this outcome, I wish they had won, and I hope the law gets overturned or revised... but they absolutely should have know better that to try and do this the way they did. They fucked around and found out. This coild have ended so much worse for them.
You somehow overlooked the second paragraph in my comment. I explicitly said the opposite of that.
I had nothing to say to that. I agree with it.
One paragraph discusses action, the other discusses philosophy. I only took issue with your regressive philosophy. I'm open to correcting misunderstandings, elaborate if you feel I continue to miss something.
The "regressive philosophy" you're accusing me of holding is the opposite of what I said. There's your misunderstanding to be corrected.
I don't like the publishers, I think copyright has gone bananas with its various extensions over the years, I want to see them fought and defeated in court. The problem here is who is doing the fighting.
Imagine a scenario where there's a ravenous man-eating bear in the woods. There's two people available to fight it; a grizzled woodsman who makes it his entire business to go out and fight bears, and the village librarian who's carrying around a backpack full of irreplaceable books. For some reason the librarian is out there poking the bear with a stick, and when the bear didn't initially respond he started whacking it over the nose. Now the bear is chewing on the librarian's leg and the librarian is crying out "oh no, my backback full of books is in danger!"
Well duh. You shouldn't have been carrying that backpack into harm's way like that. Nobody is in the least bit surprised that the bear attacked the librarian under those circumstances. I don't have to be on the bear's side to understand how this situation was going to go down and call the librarian an idiot for willingly getting into it.
The woodsman (the EFF) should have been the ones to take this fight. They're better at it, it's their job, and if they fail they don't risk that precious backpack in the process. The librarian should have kept his books safely ensconced until the fight was over and it was safe for him to bring them out. If he really wanted those books distributed in the meantime, there are some sites who are already out there running around under the bear's nose taking that risk for their own reasons; let them continue taking those risks for now. The IA's job is to protect the archive.
"Societies with rule of law are dictatorships. How leaders are selected and the existence of fundamental Constitutional rights is not a factor."
How you like them strawmen?
It's a quote of an opinion, so in general I ignore them. I'm usually more interested in distilling ideas constructed with some line of reasoning.
But I guess we can look at this one. Find it's essence. Tho it doesn't seem very deep..
So in short.
Yeah, that is one of the opinions I'd ignore. It's easy to have that opinion inside the walls of a lawed society.
Luckily it is valid to respond to an opinion with an opinion, and mine is that I imagine everyone (except the strongest with the most resources) would abandon that perspective as soon as they lived in a world with no laws.
Omg this can't be any more unrelated. Hyperbole much?
I made my peace with that a long time ago.
You should strive to improve as a person rather than be content being a stagnant asshole
Isn’t it “asshole” to consume copyrighted works for free?
Not for over half a century, once Disney lobbied the US federal government to extend temporary monopolies to egregious lengths. The point of intellectual property rights is to build a robust public domain, so every year of every extension is a year denied to the public.
This has been forgotten or ignored by the ownership class with Sony and Nintendo prosecuting use and public archival abandonware games the way Disney goes after nursery murals.
So no, we would be better off with no IP laws all than the current laws we have, and the ownership class routinely screw artists, developers and technicians for their cut of their share of the profits in what is known as Hollywood Accounting. And the record labels will cheat any artist or performer who doesn't have a Hammerhead Lawyer (or bigger) to ensure their contract is kosher.
So no. Come with me to Barbary; we'll ply there up and down. 🏴☠️
That depends on if you see the current copyright system as far to start with. The current system is a far cry from how it was created and was co-opted by companies like Disney to maintain monopolies on their IP for MUCH longer than the system was supposed to protect.
This. If I'm not mistaken, the system was meant to operate like a hybrid between patents and trademarks. Iirc, things weren't originally under copyright by default and you had to regularly renew your copyright in order to keep it. Most of the media in the public domain is a result of companies failing to properly claim or renew copyright before the laws were changed. My understanding is that the reason for this was because the intent was to protect you from having your IP stolen while it was profitable to you, but then release said IP into the public domain once it was no longer profitable (aka wasn't worth renewing copyright on).
Then corpos spent a lot of money rewriting the system and now practically everything even remotely creative is under copyright that's effectively indefinite.
It wasn't just "the corpos", you can basically tie changes to the copyright system back to Disney trying to maintain a strangle hold on their fucking mouse.
https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/mickey/
doesn't Disney count as 'the corpos'?
It counts as a corpo. Not multiple corpos.
Credit where credit is due.
Unequivocally no.
As a published (if hilariously unsuccessful) author; no, no it isn't.
I have talked to a few published authors (most unsuccessful) and listened to a few successful published authors, and they all say the same as you. Some of them (esp. successful) give away free books on their website. They just want people to read their books.
The ones complaining here aren't the authors, but the publishers.
Yeah, even the big names tend to not care much as long as nobody else is profiting off of their work. Agents and publishers, they tend to get right snippy about piracy lol.
Mind you, there is a segment of working authors that do suffer in their ability to go from a part time, almost hobbyist situation into a proper career of it. They tend to see the lack of sales as more of a problem, but they tend to be younger and didn't ever see how impossible breaking in to traditional publishing was. It's easy to look at your self published income and think "oh, if people had to buy these, I'd be making a living at this instead of it being barely enough to cover expenses for writing". But, most of the time, back before self publishing was actually a valid and useful route, they wouldn't have been selling anything, they'd be hoping for an agent to get their first sale for them.
And I'll never tell anyone that they can't profit from their own ideas and labor, and expect anyone consuming it to pay up. Authors that object, that's fine by me (and I actually don't pirate their stuff). But like you said, most writers would rather someone read and enjoy for free rather than not read at all.
No.
Copyright is bullshit, so no.
Copyright serves a very useful purpose. It's just been twisted into something it wasn't meant to be.
Exactly. Copyright used to last 14 years and required an application for a one-time extension. Let's go back to that.
100%.
The whole point was to "promote the useful arts" by allowing creators SOME time to make money off their work. People would be way less likely to write a book, a news artucle, make a movie, etc if someone else could just instantly sell copies and you couldn't support yourself with the work.
But the whole point was to give you enough protections to make it worth your while.
If you can't make enough money off of the work in 14 (or 28) years for it to have been worth it, then it's not worth it.
No one has ever said "if this isn't going to give me the exclusive right to make copies for 80 years after my death, then there's no point making it". And that was the only point to copyright. Doing the minimum to allow people to realistically make new stuff.
You misunderstand me. When I say, "copyright is bullshit" I don't mean that I don't like it, or that it doesn't work. I mean it's bullshit in the same way that the crystal healing or mushroom cancer therapy is bullshit.
You cannot steal an idea, it's impossible. So creating laws that punish people for doing things like copying a digital file doesn't make sense. Copyright supposedly was created to create an incentive for artists and inventors to make cool and enriching stuff.
But what it actually does is protects business savvy people and allows them to game the system, get first mover advantage over all others, and then punish any potential competitors in that space.
As if nobody was creating artwork or inventing useful devices before copyright law came into being.
Just because something is useful doesn't make it good, atomic bombs are useful, factory farming is useful.
I think the only thing people should be protected from as a creator is fraud. You can copy a person's works and modify or distribute them in any manner you see fit, as long as it's clear that you are not the original creator. You cannot claim to be them or to be affiliated with them unless you actually are.
That is what the principle of copyleft is all about. If copyright worked in principle, then you should see millions of individual creators enriched and protected by it.
But you don't see that, instead, a few giant mega corps and super wealthy tycoons own and control enormous swaths of "intellectual property" and small time creators struggle to make ends meet and are sued into oblivion by the same powerful groups.
Sure it's great for boosting wealth and GDP, but that boost does not apply to most of the population, it applies to the tiny elite that has now captures enormous segments of the market and fight tooth and nail to keep it that way.
Copyright is structurally flawed, it doesn't work because it cannot work. It's fundamentally based on a the nonsensical concept of "intellectual property" which as I said at the beginning, is bullshit.
They should have known better..
"Because what is legal is always right.
And what is right is always legal."
No?
In a fascist state, your mindset is welcome, "Well they broke the rule, they must pay," but do you never abstract one more level? Is the rule itself breaking something?
Those who downvote you say yes. Nuance is important. The rule has two main affects that I see.
Okay lets think about #1. Is that good or bad?
Okay lets think about #2. Is that good or bad?
Being critical in thought enough to recognize the flaws of the first quote is key.
This isn't about right or wrong though. It's explicitly about whether or not they broke the law.
They did. They did so loudly and proudly. This is why we are here, where they lost the legal battle.
If someone is pointing a gun at you with their finger on the trigger, and you say "Just try to shoot me! I dare you! You know you won't you little chickenshit." then you should have a pretty good expectation to get shot.
Everything else is valid, but significantly less important. IA has to operate in the rules that currently exist, not what the rules should be. There are better ways to get bad laws changed than to dare someone to find you guilty of them.
Maybe this case will be the first building block towards overturning the asinine digital lending laws. I would love if it was, but I'm not holding my breath.
It would be more accurate if you said, "This is not about right and wrong (for me)."
If you say it's not about right and wrong, dead stop, then you are pledging full faith to the institutions, the very ones we are critiquing.
Basically, you are dismissing my opinion as misguided, dismissing me as missing the point and I am telling you it was expressed exactly as intended.
In short, you are arguing on the wrong conceptual meta-level for me to respond without dismissing my own claim. If I take as True that "this isn't about right and wrong" (it is), then I am setting aside the power I have in a democratic society to say, "Fuck this I'm changing it." Maybe we've just been stuck in gridlock politics, with a ruling class that strips and monetizes every aspect of humanity that the society today doesn't realize the power citizens wield.
Not sure. Been fun to think and share thoughts with you though. Thanks for your time and have a nice night.
An impasse is a perfectly acceptable outcome on a sane platform like Lemmy.
The Wikipedia article explains and has sources.
That is what happens though, it's clear about that.
They claimed to use the same protections as others. Is there a more accurate article about how their lending was faulty?
During Covid, they lent out multiple copies of the same book when they only had physical access to one copy. It would be like your local library making Xerox copies of their collection and handing them out. There’s no protections for that.
https://www.vox.com/culture/2020/4/2/21201193/emergency-library-internet-archive-controversy-coronavirus-pandemic
Not sure about an article, but they themselves announced that their emergency covid library would not set limits on the amount of copies that could be checked out. That's literally the law they broke, that it has to be 1 to 1 outside of any other agreement.