News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Let Readers Read by pie_flavor on Monday June 17, 2024 @12:57PM (#40707951)
For those who don't know, the case against archive.org is pretty rock solid and justifiable. They had been operating a lending library of ebooks, where you could 'check out' an ebook file and they wouldn't let anyone else read it until you had 'put it back'. They had many options for evading DRM and told you to delete the file when you 'put it back' on the honor system, so this was already legally shaky, but during the pandemic they disabled the limits and let anyone 'check out' anything they wanted without waiting for a copy to become available - AKA hosting a pirate site for downloading unauthorized ebook copies, just with 'library' branding. That is what they got sued for.
Re:Let Readers Read by boomboomsubban on Monday June 17, 2024 @03:08PM (#40709750)
>That is what they got sued for.

It is not. The judge ruled the CDL, their original system, was illegal, and the only mention of the period where they removed the limits was saying basically "as controlled digital lending was already illegal, the pandemic actions were also illegal."

Re:Let Readers Read by TMWNN on Friday June 21, 2024 @06:56PM (#40754693)
This is cope and ex post facto butt-covering. pie_flavor's point is that OpenLibrary's "emergency library" made IA legally vulnerable. Whether CDL being affected is a side effect or not of the lawsuit is beside the point.
Re:Let Readers Read by boomboomsubban on Friday June 21, 2024 @08:27PM (#40755197)
This is nonsense. Publishers had been building up to attack CDL for years, and your argument that "as you committed this illegal act, this other legal act is now a crime for everybody" makes absolutely zero sense.

The emergency library made them legally vulnerable over that act, this lawsuit is not about that act.

Re:Let Readers Read by jordanb on Friday June 21, 2024 @08:35PM (#40755226)
> OpenLibrary's "emergency library" made IA legally vulnerable

According to the plaintiffs and the judge who agreed with them, controlled digital lending was always illegal and they always had grounds to sue. So it did not make them "legally vulnerable."

I could see it argued that it made them "rhetorically vulnerable" and that's why the publishers took this particular moment to sue, but your statement is in contradiction with the plaintiffs and judge.

Re:Let Readers Read by nimih on Monday June 17, 2024 @01:58PM (#40708834)
> They had been operating a lending library of ebooks, where you could 'check out' an ebook file and they wouldn't let anyone else read it until you had 'put it back'. They had many options for evading DRM and told you to delete the file when you 'put it back' on the honor system

This is basically how checking out ebooks from my "regular" library works. Not only is the DRM relatively easy to remove (even for non-technical users), returning the books is also on the honor system (to wit: on a Kindle, you retain access to books indefinitely so long as you're in airplane mode; on a Kobo, so long as you keep the book open and avoid returning to the home screen; these tricks are both easily discovered and, IME, routinely shared among people with ereaders). It's possible IA should've avoided poking the bear by removing these nominal restrictions during the pandemic, but framing their normal operation as substantially different from that of more traditional libraries is rather disingenuous.

Re:Let Readers Read by pie_flavor on Monday June 17, 2024 @02:54PM (#40709561)
1. There's a difference between a weak DRM format, and a "download as PDF" option.

2. "Poking the bear by removing these nominal restrictions" is the "branding" I was talking about. Their "emergency library" was a pirate site, plain and simple. You can describe it as a procedural difference from what they were doing before, but that doesn't stop it from being piracy.

Re:Let Readers Read by nimih on Monday June 17, 2024 @04:00PM (#40710358)
> There's a difference between a weak DRM format, and a "download as PDF" option.

Can you direct me to a book available to borrow in the IA, which both requires copyright protection, and is available to download as a DRM-free PDF? My understanding is that no such book currently exists, nor did it exist in the pre-pandemic regime.

> "Poking the bear by removing these nominal restrictions" is the "branding" I was talking about. Their "emergency library" was a pirate site, plain and simple. You can describe it as a procedural difference from what they were doing before, but that doesn't stop it from being piracy.

I don't think there's any great contradiction in the ideas that a) the barriers the IA had prior to the pandemic (and still has, to my knowledge) against piracy are perfunctory and largely ineffective, b) they are the same barriers that any US-based library with an ebook rental program uses, and c) even slightly weakening those barriers caused the IA to be de facto facilitating piracy in a legal sense, regardless of their intentions.

Re:Let Readers Read by mdp2021 on Monday June 17, 2024 @03:07PM (#40709722)
> was

Vacuous labels. A library provides access to texts; the idea of lending single texts serially just comes from the physical restrictions of physical books, which loses meaning with the electronic format.

A library lends books. There is little difference if the queue is respected when such queue is artificial.

Re:Let Readers Read by pie_flavor on Monday June 17, 2024 @03:39PM (#40710110)
No, it comes from the legal restrictions of copyright, which forbid making and distributing copies without the permission of the copyright holder. "Library" is not a magic word that exempts you from all copyright restrictions.
Re:Let Readers Read by mdp2021 on Monday June 17, 2024 @04:27PM (#40710671)
And in fact the copyright holder has no power about its product, when published, not being acquired by key libraries. It was so for example under Ptolemy III Euergetes (who mandated that every found book be copied for the Museum in Alexandria), and it is so today. Libraries are there for collection of and access to recorded knowledge.

The modalities of accession had a form with the physical book, and may lose meaning with current new formats (there is no natural exclusive access to a single token). So, labelling "piracy" simultaneous access may easily be just vacuous technicality.

Re:Let Readers Read by pie_flavor on Monday June 17, 2024 @04:52PM (#40710913)
'Vacuous' is a good word to describe comments about Ptolemy and tokens, when copyright law forbids making and distributing copies without permission from the copyright holder, and that is exactly what IA was doing.
Re:Let Readers Read by mdp2021 on Monday June 17, 2024 @06:25PM (#40711844)
Reference to the traditional historical intention about having libraries and to relation between codified law and practicalities will remain vacuous to you in meaning for as long as you will refuse to see the communicated point about a clash between principles, which makes the copyright laws you mention, as part of a dialectic, even weaker than normal positive law.
Re:Let Readers Read by account42 on Monday June 24, 2024 @04:26AM (#40773638)
Right and if the IA was following that logic it should have never bothered with any DRM in the first place.
Re:Let Readers Read by finnless on Monday June 17, 2024 @03:20PM (#40709894)
There is no download as PDF option for works in-copyright.
Re:Let Readers Read by wizzwizz4 on Monday June 17, 2024 @01:40PM (#40708559)
> They had many options for evading DRM

As does Adobe, Amazon… There's no need for me to go through the list alphabetically. There's fundamentally no such thing as a technological protection measure, not in a world where the compact digital camera exists.

Re:Let Readers Read by pie_flavor on Monday June 17, 2024 @02:56PM (#40709585)
The ease with which a padlock is broken by bolt cutters is not a legal defense against doing so.
Re:Let Readers Read by skulk on Monday June 17, 2024 @04:11PM (#40710503)
Equating physical property (subject to scarcity) and digital property is what ends up destroying the foundation of freedom in computing. Can we not perpetuate this way of thinking and instead find better ways to support creators?
Re:Let Readers Read by crtasm on Monday June 17, 2024 @03:10PM (#40709766)
What do you even mean here? IA didn't break DRM, and they use industry standard DRM.
Re:Let Readers Read by sayhar on Monday June 17, 2024 @01:01PM (#40708011)
A lot of this is flatly untrue.
Re:Let Readers Read by DiggyJohnson on Monday June 17, 2024 @01:33PM (#40708447)
Like what?
Re:Let Readers Read by pie_flavor on Monday June 17, 2024 @01:21PM (#40708265)
No, it is not.
Re:Let Readers Read by crtasm on Monday June 17, 2024 @02:21PM (#40709150)
Then you can give us some proof/citation on "They had many options for evading DRM" please?

Every time I've borrowed a book on there, it's used Adobe DRM just like when I buy an ebook.

Re:Let Readers Read by pie_flavor on Monday June 17, 2024 @02:54PM (#40709563)
The options to download the book as a PDF or epub.
Re:Let Readers Read by crtasm on Monday June 17, 2024 @03:03PM (#40709673)
Those options don't exist for books in their lending programme though.

Example: https://archive.org/details/introducingpytho0000luba

Re:Let Readers Read by pie_flavor on Monday June 17, 2024 @03:41PM (#40710124)
I have seen it many times. Perhaps they removed it since the lawsuit.
Re:Let Readers Read by crtasm on Monday June 17, 2024 @04:39PM (#40710802)
I have too: on books that are not part of their controlled lending programme.
Re:Let Readers Read by jandrese on Monday June 17, 2024 @04:22PM (#40710613)
IMHO the Internet Archive was always going to get sued because they were treating ebooks like physical books and that's contrary to the copyright maximalism that is law around ebooks. The COVID change didn't really make a difference, they publishers were never going to allow some random people on the internet undo all of the work they put into adding restrictions on digital media.

They're never ever going to allow something like the doctrine of first sale to happen again. That's why you can't have an regular library with ebooks. The publishers will not settle for anything less than charging libraries per-read and requiring negotiation for every title offered. The old library model doesn't maximize shareholder value for the publisher. Also to blame is our elected representatives who could legislate a better system for the people, but are too beholden to corporate interests to ever do so.

Re:Let Readers Read by TMWNN on Friday June 21, 2024 @07:13PM (#40754811)
>IMHO the Internet Archive was always going to get sued because they were treating ebooks like physical books and that's contrary to the copyright maximalism that is law around ebooks.

No, IA was not sued before the "emergency library" because OpenLibrary treated physical books like physical books. OpenLibrary had been around for years before 2020.[0]

>They're never ever going to allow something like the doctrine of first sale to happen again.

Ah yes, the oft-touted warning that "they" (meaning publishers) hate the first sale doctrine and somehow will magically abolish it.[1] The principle that one you own something tangible, you can do whatever you want with it (sell it, lend it, gift it, destroy it) is a longstanding one, with books being only one application. Lending libraries predate the concept of a free public library and, yet, publishers somehow did not go around to every paid library and mechanics' institute demanding a cut of membership fees.

>That's why you can't have an regular library with ebooks.

I said "tangible" above for a reason. I don't have a good answer for how and whether to treat ebooks differently, but am not convinced that the only right and proper one is to treat them exactly the same way as physical books.

>The publishers will not settle for anything less than charging libraries per-read and requiring negotiation for every title offered.

But this has not been the case in practice. Amazon and other retailers sell ebooks with permanent licenses.[2] Libraries use both CloudLibrary's per-borrow model and Overdrive as providers; while I prefer the latter as a Kindle e-paper reader, there is an argument to be made for either approach from a logistical perspective. In my experience Overdrive has the largest market share, so libraries seem to prefer its approach.[3]

[0] I'm quite certain that my IA/OL account is older than yours.

[1] As amazing as it may seem, publishing companies' employees also grew up borrowing books at the library.

[2] Yes, I know about the 1984 example

[3] And before you say "Overdrive books shouldn't expire after 52 borrows!", that seems like a reasonable compromise given that ebooks don't fall apart after repeated use the way pretty much any physical book would after that many borrows. Again, paid-for ebooks from Amazon and elsewhere don't expire.