Internet Archive loses appeal over eBook lending

Re:Internet Archive loses appeal over eBook lending by rodgerd on Wednesday September 04, 2024 @11:33PM (#41453218)

I was looking for a clip from a trailer for a film that is available on physical media, streaming, and was in cinemas two years ago.

IA had the whole film online as bluray quality rip.

What's the difference between the IA and Kim Dotcom at that point?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Internet Archive loses appeal over eBook lending by 71bw on Thursday September 05, 2024 @03:24AM (#41454363)

>What's the difference between the IA and Kim Dotcom at that point?

None. They have, for a long time now, become a good place for outright piracy - both for downloaders and uploaders. It's nice to have such easy access to perfect DVDrips of GTA: SA v1.0 US, but... definitely NOT legal.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Internet Archive loses appeal over eBook lending by pbhjpbhj on Thursday September 05, 2024 @06:10AM (#41455205)

It's legal to download if you own a copy isn't it? In USA, I mean?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Internet Archive loses appeal over eBook lending by klez on Thursday September 05, 2024 @04:16AM (#41454628)

I'd say the profit motive.

You could argue that donations amount to profit, but that's a line I'd be afraid to cross.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Internet Archive loses appeal over eBook lending by pbhjpbhj on Thursday September 05, 2024 @06:09AM (#41455199)

You'll also have to ask what's the difference between Google Drive (or any other online file store) and IA here though. I've found plenty of complete copyright works on Google Drive.

Do IA respond to removal requests? Did IA staff upload that film?

For that, Google Books took works still in copyright and made copies for commercial purposes, they somehow were allowed.

The difference with Kim Dotcom is possibly that he sold (!) more movies through his activities.

[ Parent | on HN ]