Who archives the archivers? - The Internet Archive sued (for potentially $210 billion) by publishers due to questionable COVID decisions

[JZStudios]

8 hours ago, TomvanWijnen said:

Do you think that those 1.4 million books would have been properly bought if they weren't free? I certainly don't think so.

What? I don't understand the question. The fact is that 1.4 million books were given away free illegally. Whether or not they would've been bought otherwise has no bearing. If you make a product, and I steal it and give it away for free, it doesn't just disappear because the person who took it wouldn't have bought it otherwise. You're still missing your product that someone has obtained without your permission or purchase.

 

6 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

1. A single free item gained cannot be equated to a single sale lost. That person might have had no intention of ever purchasing the book, therefore a sale was not lost.

 

2. It is well established and easily proven that the media can and will delete things to serve their narrative. Don't just take my word for it. Do some research on your own. The biggest example that comes to mind is the debacle with The Verge's "PC build guide".

1. Ditto. It's still stolen product that was given away, regardless of whether or not there was an original intention of purchase.
2. Why are you directing that at me? I said nothing about that whole debacle. If anything I agreed with you in a slightly humorous/sarcastic way. This is why we need the PATRIOTS.

 

[AnonymousGuy]

Award $1 in damages.

 

They get to "win" but IA doesn't really lose.

[straight_stewie]

Episode II, The Print Media Strikes Back.

[Bombastinator]

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

The value was an the existing agreement between the copyright owner and the library.  The problem that ia face here is arguing for lower amount given they knew the value of each book and knew they were legally only entitled to lend out one digital copy per book purchased.   I would find most peculiar if a US court reduced the amount based on an interpretation of value that is not consistent with a signed license.

I would too, but I would assume so did the internet archive, which makes me wonder if they also know something we don’t.

[Trik'Stari]

1 hour ago, JZStudios said:

What? I don't understand the question. The fact is that 1.4 million books were given away free illegally. Whether or not they would've been bought otherwise has no bearing. If you make a product, and I steal it and give it away for free, it doesn't just disappear because the person who took it wouldn't have bought it otherwise. You're still missing your product that someone has obtained without your permission or purchase.

 

1. Ditto. It's still stolen product that was given away, regardless of whether or not there was an original intention of purchase.
2. Why are you directing that at me? I said nothing about that whole debacle. If anything I agreed with you in a slightly humorous/sarcastic way. This is why we need the PATRIOTS.

 

I misunderstood, thought you were saying "oh look more crazy conspiracies."

[HempBoosh]

Oh man, this was definitely a bad move by the internet archive for sure. I do hope that they don't go bankrupt because of this, we need to preserve the internet so we can learn from it in the future. 

[LAwLz]

13 hours ago, JZStudios said:

Well, how about I steal a few million from you? Would you just say, "Hey, could you like... maybe not?" or would you want your money reimbursed at the least? The fact that IA has other good attributes is pretty irrelevant, though it would suck to see it closed.

But nobody stole millions of dollars from these publishers. At most you can say the potentially lost out on profits, which is a very different thing.

And we don't even know how much they actually lost. It might have been a couple of hundred of dollars. It depends on how many unauthorized books IA lent out without the proper permissions.

 

I think intent should play a big role in the judgement, and IAs intent was pure. Libraries are closed, so we will try and fill that gap. It would be interesting to see how much financial damage publishers actually suffered because of this, but for that we need several variables we don't actually have.

Publisher loss = (IA books lent) - (books IA were authorized to lend) - (amount of books closed libraries were authorized to lend).

 

I would not be surprised if the end result is maybe a couple of thousands of dollars, rather than the billions of potential damages the maximum fine is.

 

 

 

Imagine what a fucking scumbag you have to be to sue a library, probably without even contacting them first asking them to stop. That alone should be enough for people to side with IA in my opinion.

This isn't about "making things right" or "doing the right thing". Publishers saw this as an opportunity to make some quick money and harm something they don't like (libraries) at the same time.

[dalekphalm]

5 hours ago, LAwLz said:

But nobody stole millions of dollars from these publishers. At most you can say the potentially lost out on profits, which is a very different thing.

And we don't even know how much they actually lost. It might have been a couple of hundred of dollars. It depends on how many unauthorized books IA lent out without the proper permissions.

 

I think intent should play a big role in the judgement, and IAs intent was pure. Libraries are closed, so we will try and fill that gap. It would be interesting to see how much financial damage publishers actually suffered because of this, but for that we need several variables we don't actually have.

Publisher loss = (IA books lent) - (books IA were authorized to lend) - (amount of books closed libraries were authorized to lend).

 

I would not be surprised if the end result is maybe a couple of thousands of dollars, rather than the billions of potential damages the maximum fine is.

 

 

 

Imagine what a fucking scumbag you have to be to sue a library, probably without even contacting them first asking them to stop. That alone should be enough for people to side with IA in my opinion.

This isn't about "making things right" or "doing the right thing". Publishers saw this as an opportunity to make some quick money and harm something they don't like (libraries) at the same time.

Just an FYI - many libraries are still lending out digital content, including eBooks and Audio books - most of that content is automatic anyway, so a Library would have to go out of their way to stop lending ebooks during a shutdown.

 

I work at a Library, and I've borrowed multiple audiobooks since the outbreak started (and no I didn't need to do anything special as a staff member to do so).

 

So while access to physical books was severely restricted, access to digital books would have almost certainly been unfettered for the vast majority of libraries.

 

As an employee of a Library, I don't side with either, but I'm leaning towards the Publishers side for sure.

 

Any library should be well versed in at least the basics of copyright, and the idea that you can just share unlimited ebook copies of a book without legal repercussions is utterly absurd. We pay for every single eBook copy we carry.

 

I get the idea - and it's a great idea in theory. But it was unquestionably illegal and wrong to do so without permission.

 

They should have asked for permission to do what they did, with specific timeframes and and an agreement with the publishers.

 

As for the $150K fines - that's the maximum fine allowable under law - not necessarily what they will actually go for.

[Bombastinator]

12 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Just an FYI - many libraries are still lending out digital content, including eBooks and Audio books - most of that content is automatic anyway, so a Library would have to go out of their way to stop lending ebooks during a shutdown.

 

I work at a Library, and I've borrowed multiple audiobooks since the outbreak started (and no I didn't need to do anything special as a staff member to do so).

 

So while access to physical books was severely restricted, access to digital books would have almost certainly been unfettered for the vast majority of libraries.

 

As an employee of a Library, I don't side with either, but I'm leaning towards the Publishers side for sure.

 

Any library should be well versed in at least the basics of copyright, and the idea that you can just share unlimited ebook copies of a book without legal repercussions is utterly absurd. We pay for every single eBook copy we carry.

 

I get the idea - and it's a great idea in theory. But it was unquestionably illegal and wrong to do so without permission.

 

They should have asked for permission to do what they did, with specific timeframes and and an agreement with the publishers.

 

As for the $150K fines - that's the maximum fine allowable under law - not necessarily what they will actually go for.

Which is why im thinking there is more to this one.  It’s not the kind of mistake a library would make.

[wanderingfool2]

12 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Which is why im thinking there is more to this one.  It’s not the kind of mistake a library would make.

It could also be that it isn't run like a traditional library (in the sense that it could have been one upper-management type of person who quashed all concerns and decided to do the go ahead).  Just speculation, but really it feels like the lets do this and ask for forgiveness logic they were using.

 

6 hours ago, LAwLz said:

IAs intent was pure

It all depends on what is considered pure...pure to me is if they did it for the greater good of people without the knowledge they were going to commit mass copyright infringement.  To me, it isn't pure if they willfully broke copyright laws for the people (because at that point they knew what the consequences could be and should have to live with the consequences of their decisions)

[Master Disaster]

On 6/9/2020 at 10:41 PM, dalekphalm said:

Even if this does go to court, there’s no way IA will pay anything even close to that high. 
 

Those are the maximum payouts, and given how it’s not selling or directly profiting from the extra copies will heavily mitigate any kind of settlement. 
 

I still wouldn’t disregard an out of court settlement in which the IA pays little to nothing in exchange for immediately stopping the extra copies, and the publishers get to save face. 
 

It’s also possible the publishers might come back and offer the licenses for free as a gesture and sign a contract giving the IA the copyright licenses they need. This is the least likely outcome but it’s still within reason a possibility. 
 

I think they will settle out of court and the IA will get a slap on the wrist. But that depends on whether the IA tries to come up with some legal justification. Nobody thinks they would have any chance of winning, but perhaps there’s a loophole, etc. 

I watched an informative video by Leonard French a few weeks back about this exact topic. When someone sues someone else they have to submit a claim for damages and there's generally a scale on that amount. According to Leonard its actually VERY unusual for a Judge to award maximum damages to anybody, if the plaintiff is seeking maximum damages the Judge will usually ask them to explain why the want the maximum allowed, provide the court with proof they lost the amount they are seeking and/or advise them to resubmit a new claim at a reduced level.

 

Apparently the tactic used by big companies is to always apply for the maximum even though they know they'll never get it because they know the news cycle will report "xxx is suing yyy for $1 billion dollars". They're fully aware they will have to reduce the claim later on but they seek the headlines as a scare tactic.

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

It could also be that it isn't run like a traditional library (in the sense that it could have been one upper-management type of person who quashed all concerns and decided to do the go ahead).  Just speculation, but really it feels like the lets do this and ask for forgiveness logic they were using.

 

It all depends on what is considered pure...pure to me is if they did it for the greater good of people without the knowledge they were going to commit mass copyright infringement.  To me, it isn't pure if they willfully broke copyright laws for the people (because at that point they knew what the consequences could be and should have to live with the consequences of their decisions)

I’m not ruling out deep stupid.  I’m just saying it’s unlikely enough to make me not know which end is up on this one. 

[Kisai]

9 hours ago, HempBoosh said:

Oh man, this was definitely a bad move by the internet archive for sure. I do hope that they don't go bankrupt because of this, we need to preserve the internet so we can learn from it in the future. 

Remember that all the IA stuff is "donated" by people on the internet. How entire rom libraries, let alone PC software images end up on there is because someone collected pirate copies that other people ripped.

 

If IA wanted to do a due diligence with what they accept, they really need to have someone vet everything that is sent to them, and that's just not going to happen. The same argument Google uses for showing wikipedia snippets and stealing news and images from third party sites. "Well you didn't put a sign out saying no Google's"

 

Opt-out systems mean that people have to waste their time figuring it out. Opt-in systems mean that nobody is stupid enough to opt-in. See the GDPR for how stupid opt-in is, pretty much every site with ads on it harasses you to click some cookie nonsense and obscures or makes the page unreadable until you do (or you use a plugin or delete the nag with the dev console.) There is a much easier solution that browser developers could implement, and it's been in the browser since the 90's. "Block all third party cookies" should be default. That will break every SSO system (eg "login with facebook", "login with google") but, that has a very easy fix as well, as sites implementing OAuth just pass the token via the backend instead of through the user's browser. You of course would have to trust both sites a little more than random-site-you-want-to-comment-on.

 

Which comes back to the problem with opting-in. It's just not something people want to expense time with.

 

So it's better for the Internet Archive to accept everything, and if some third party says "no, don't make that public" then just withdraw it until the copyright expires. Copyright is far too long already, and no software would be out of copyright within our lifetimes. Books, Music, Comics, Animation and such have been around far longer and may enter the public domain at some point, but IA doesn't need to make it available before then, just say they have archive-quality versions that can be reviewed if needed for educational or research purposes.

 

[RoseLuck462]

Sounds like a scummy cash grab attempt by the publishers.

 

IA did the right thing in light of the corona drama.

[JZStudios]

10 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

I misunderstood, thought you were saying "oh look more crazy conspiracies."

In part. It's just most conspiracies about the government being shady assholes and media covering up stories aren't that crazy, as it's been proven multiple times.

 

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

But nobody stole millions of dollars from these publishers. At most you can say the potentially lost out on profits, which is a very different thing.

And we don't even know how much they actually lost. It might have been a couple of hundred of dollars. It depends on how many unauthorized books IA lent out without the proper permissions.

 

I think intent should play a big role in the judgement, and IAs intent was pure. Libraries are closed, so we will try and fill that gap. It would be interesting to see how much financial damage publishers actually suffered because of this, but for that we need several variables we don't actually have.

Publisher loss = (IA books lent) - (books IA were authorized to lend) - (amount of books closed libraries were authorized to lend).

 

I would not be surprised if the end result is maybe a couple of thousands of dollars, rather than the billions of potential damages the maximum fine is.

 

 

 

Imagine what a fucking scumbag you have to be to sue a library, probably without even contacting them first asking them to stop. That alone should be enough for people to side with IA in my opinion.

This isn't about "making things right" or "doing the right thing". Publishers saw this as an opportunity to make some quick money and harm something they don't like (libraries) at the same time.

They gave away free product, whether it was "borrowed" or not. That's stealing. Technically pirating. It's a really simple concept. Did IA own the copies of those books they lent out? No? Then it's stealing.

True, but I don't think IA has 1.4 million copies on hand. The amount of illicit books they handed out will be determined in the court case. That then will affect the charges levied.

 

Intent doesn't typically play a big role in copyright theft/piracy. Most pirates have "pure" intents, they want to share products with people so then try them out or if they can't afford them. It's still 100% illegal. Your math doesn't work out, this case doesn't have anything to do with other libraries or whether or not they were open.

 

I did the math, the max amount at $150k per book is $22m. Not billions, and yeah, it'll most likely settle for less than that.

 

Imagine once again I steal your property and you sue me without having the common decency to say "Hey, stop that." Publishers have exactly zero beef with libraries, I have no idea where you're getting that from. Libraries are most likely the largest purchasers of books. They have issues with people stealing from them.

[LAwLz]

13 hours ago, JZStudios said:

They gave away free product, whether it was "borrowed" or not. That's stealing. Technically pirating. It's a really simple concept. Did IA own the copies of those books they lent out? No? Then it's stealing.

Again, it's not stealing.

Stealing (which you claim it is) and copyright infringement (what this is) are two very different concept and has completely different laws that apply to them. Please stop referring to this as stealing because it flat out isn't.

It's not even piracy either because IA aren't the ones obtaining the books without proper permission. The readers are (in good faith). So at most you can say IA has provided a way for people to pirate things.

 

 

13 hours ago, JZStudios said:

Intent doesn't typically play a big role in copyright theft/piracy. Most pirates have "pure" intents, they want to share products with people so then try them out or if they can't afford them. It's still 100% illegal.

You're right that intent typically doesn't matter in copyright, but I never said it did. What I said is that I THINK IT SHOULD. If you want me to rephrase, what I said was that I believe it would be fair to take intent into consideration when ruling on this because I believe intent should factor in. I am in no way saying "intent is super important for this ruling because that's how the law works", which seems to be your interpretation of my statement. All I am saying is, if I were in charge, intent would be a major factor. I mean, it is in other crimes, so why not this one? Intent is the difference between murder and reckless homicide.

 

13 hours ago, JZStudios said:

Your math doesn't work out, this case doesn't have anything to do with other libraries or whether or not they were open.

Again, I never said this lawsuit had anything to do with that though. I just said it would be interesting if we could calculate the actual losses the publishers suffered. I also said we couldn't do it. I never said "here is the calculations they will use in court!".

 

You seem to conflict "this is my opinion on the matter" with "this is how it will be handled in court" a lot in my posts. When I say things like "it would be interesting to know how much profit the publishers actually lost out on when you take X and Y into consideration", I am not saying "this is how the court will calculate the damages". I am just speculating and giving my personal opinion on the matter.

 

 

13 hours ago, JZStudios said:

I did the math, the max amount at $150k per book is $22m. Not billions, and yeah, it'll most likely settle for less than that.

Where did you get those numbers from?

Maybe I am misreading the sources but they claim that the maximum amount per book is 150,000 dollars, and that the IA has 1.4 million books. That works out to a lot more than 22 million. Maybe not all of those books are included in the lawsuit?

 

 

13 hours ago, JZStudios said:

Imagine once again I steal your property and you sue me without having the common decency to say "Hey, stop that." Publishers have exactly zero beef with libraries, I have no idea where you're getting that from. Libraries are most likely the largest purchasers of books. They have issues with people stealing from them.

Where did I get the idea from? Maybe the source where it states several publishers has condemned IA in the past but not taken any legal actions until now?

If you want a source on that, here is one from last year where several publishers said they were against borrowing of digital content, even if it was controlled in the way IA did before (buy a physical book, lend out a digital one).

https://publishingperspectives.com/2019/02/aap-slams-cdl-controlled-digital-lending-uk-authors-appeal-to-internet-archive-funders/

 

Publishers do have beefs with libraries over digital content. Here is an open letter from publishers and authors to IA where they claim scanning and then lending out a book is copyright infringement even if they make sure only a single copy of each physical book is borrowed at any single moment.

https://form.jotformeu.com/90131857822356

If physical libraries had been invented today, publishers would most likely be against that as well.

 

Here are some more links if you don't believe me when I say publishers hate IA and digital lending, even if it is controlled.

Here is one from the Canadian writers' union:

https://the-digital-reader.com/2019/01/23/the-writers-union-of-canada-condemns-the-internet-archives-pirate-site-the-open-library/

 

Here is an article about how Science Fiction and fantasy writers of America claim that controlled digital lending (again, that is when you buy a physical book, scan it, lend a digital copy to someone, and then not lend it to someone else before the first person has lost access to their digital copy) is piracy in their eyes.

https://the-digital-reader.com/2018/01/09/sfwa-finally-notices-internet-archives-decade-old-open-library-decides-piracy/

[Kisai]

10 hours ago, LAwLz said:

 

Where did I get the idea from? Maybe the source where it states several publishers has condemned IA in the past but not taken any legal actions until now?

 

IA, does more good than harm, so I'd be willing to believe that IA did things with the spirit of "we're helping" rather than "arrr, information wants to be free, pay for nothing" type of tone pirates actually believe.

 

There's two, and only two kinds of major digital piracy:

a) Those that will pay for nothing, so there are no lost sales here, it's a challenge in upon itself to figure out how to steal things and not get caught or have to pay a penny for it. These are the people who grab all the zero day content from rippers themselves private channels. They're also the ones who generally do not give a care about how it's acquired. From them, you get the raws that are used for scanlations/fansubbing into languages that the original was not made available in, and may never be made available in.

b) Those that collect everything, unlike the first type of pirate, the second type of pirate is only concerned with collecting everything of X. So that could be Disney films, that could be Romance novels, that could be DOS games, whatever. So they will take whatever they can find in the belief that they are preserving things. These are the people who collect bootleg records of live performances, obscure development builds of software, technical information on products (technical manuals, blueprints, verilog code to chips, SDK's to propietary consoles, etc) it doesn't matter if it's a good quality, just that they have it.

 

The casual pirate, is the person who visits a piracy website, and downloads the thing they're looking for without ever considering paying for it, because that's the first thing their search engine shows them. They either don't know they're pirating it, or are too lazy to find what service it's on (thank you netflix, hulu, amazon, apple, hbo, etc for shooting your own foot,) or their device isn't supported (such as various TV's that don't have CrunchyRoll apps, or VRV/Hulu which isn't available outside the US) These people can be convinced to pay for it, if you show them where they can. Piracy of unlicensed media can be avoided just by not geoblocking it in the first place. So what if the foreign customer can't read or understand it, that's what they want to consume, so let them.

 

 

 

[JoostinOnline]

This just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. IA was in the wrong (when I first heard about this I'd assumed they'd cleared it with publishers), but it's also in really bad taste for publishers to sue over this. Making books free for awhile likely saved lives because it kept people inside.