Very interesting article in the New York Times on the Internet Archive.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/13/business/media/internet-archive-emergency-lending-library.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage§ion=Business
Internet Archive lawsuit; article in New York Times
Unfortunately, I cannot access it. There are some restrictions of use. Hopefully it won't be a problem for everybody, though. Thank you anyway!david wales wrote: ↑August 14th, 2023, 9:33 am Very interesting article in the New York Times on the Internet Archive.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/13/business/media/internet-archive-emergency-lending-library.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage§ion=Business
-
david wales
- Posts: 7040
- Joined: May 2nd, 2011, 5:46 pm
- Location: Los Angeles
O dear, I didn't realize that my citation would not work. Here is the article, which I hope is ok for fair use. David
[Copyrighted material redacted by admin]
[Copyrighted material redacted by admin]
Peace, David
-
lightcrystal
- Posts: 1256
- Joined: October 22nd, 2021, 10:55 pm
- Location: Melbourne with kangaroos
Frankly I have never agreed with the Internet Archive here. They have strayed outside their lane; some books do have a valid copyright. Not all books are free. Moreover I wish that they would devote those time and energies to things that matter. More support for disabled people for a start; does IA cater for their needs and technologies?
Then again I am a practical pragmatist. I don't have an ideology. Sigh.
Then again I am a practical pragmatist. I don't have an ideology. Sigh.
Fan of all 80s pop music except Meatloaf.
-
annise
- LibriVox Admin Team
- Posts: 38684
- Joined: April 3rd, 2008, 3:55 am
- Location: Melbourne,Australia
So what more should IA do for the disabled ? - I'm sure they would be open to suggestions if you made them and they were possible with existing technology.
they do provide access to print handicapped for some texts, and by enabling us to exist they open up much early literature.
We had a thank you some years ago from a middle European student saying he had a postgraduate qualification in English Literature based solely on our books which gave me a warm fuzzy feeling
"Great Oaks from little Acorns grow"
Anne
they do provide access to print handicapped for some texts, and by enabling us to exist they open up much early literature.
We had a thank you some years ago from a middle European student saying he had a postgraduate qualification in English Literature based solely on our books which gave me a warm fuzzy feeling
"Great Oaks from little Acorns grow"
Anne
Yes, very interesting. Thank you!david wales wrote: ↑August 14th, 2023, 9:33 am Very interesting article in the New York Times on the Internet Archive.
"Capitalists may be obnoxious and selfish and in firm need of restraint, but the truly dangerous people in this world are the true believers who want to impose their utopian vision on everyone else,” Mr. Preston said.
[..] the judge [...] If the publishers do not have an e-book edition of a book available, he said, the archive’s scanning is not relevant."
We'd discussed this Emergency Library case a bit when it first broke, but this is a disappointing development. And now there's another suit coming, this time for music.
The current case:
Internet Archive doesn't only provide Public Domain works, it also "lends" digital scans of works that are still in copyright. IA originally would only lend out as many scans at a time, as it owned physical originals. The "Emergency Library" program was where they decided to do away with that limitation, and it was the trigger for this suit. The settlement agreement in that article would bind them not to lend digital scans of some books at all, whether they own originals or not. Public Domain books should be exempt, and the settlement could change depending how the appeal goes.
The new case:
IA has digitized some recordings in an old physical format, 78rpm records. They call it "Great 78". Just like the Emergency Library, though, this program includes many works still under copyright, and IA isn't lending only as many digital copies as it has originals. IA argues that this is fair use, because it's not hurting sales through other channels - someone who just wants to listen to music would go somewhere else, and only folks who want to research would go to Archive.org. I hope I'm missing some important part of the argument, because that doesn't seem likely to fly.
This all goes to show why the admins are so careful in checking that our sources are Public Domain. Internet Archive makes some risky choices of their own, but it's good to be sure we're not adding to that risk.
The current case:
Internet Archive doesn't only provide Public Domain works, it also "lends" digital scans of works that are still in copyright. IA originally would only lend out as many scans at a time, as it owned physical originals. The "Emergency Library" program was where they decided to do away with that limitation, and it was the trigger for this suit. The settlement agreement in that article would bind them not to lend digital scans of some books at all, whether they own originals or not. Public Domain books should be exempt, and the settlement could change depending how the appeal goes.
The new case:
IA has digitized some recordings in an old physical format, 78rpm records. They call it "Great 78". Just like the Emergency Library, though, this program includes many works still under copyright, and IA isn't lending only as many digital copies as it has originals. IA argues that this is fair use, because it's not hurting sales through other channels - someone who just wants to listen to music would go somewhere else, and only folks who want to research would go to Archive.org. I hope I'm missing some important part of the argument, because that doesn't seem likely to fly.
This all goes to show why the admins are so careful in checking that our sources are Public Domain. Internet Archive makes some risky choices of their own, but it's good to be sure we're not adding to that risk.
I'll be out for a bit on this last weekend of April, but still checking in as I get the chance. I will try to follow up on Monday, with anything I can't do on the go.
-
GettingTooOld
- Posts: 416
- Joined: October 19th, 2021, 3:28 am
Thank you for the assistance David.
I recall the amounts they claimed they'd lost for each and every blank cassette tape sold, and then when they applied the same ridiculous claim calculations to ipods, every ipod was costing the rich people more money than there was currency on planet earth. I can't find the reference to that story on the internet anymore, these things seem to get washed away, maybe someone else remembers.
The rich steal from the poor, openly. Apple for a few years would secretly delete everything on your ipod that you downloaded from the competition with your own hard earned money. Your property, your money, bad luck. "Apple security director Augustin Farrugia said the company's efforts to delete music acquired from third-party sources was done in an effort to protect consumers from hackers and malicious content."
If you type librivox incorrectly, amazon is after your data and your cash soon after that. You'll think you've come to the right place when you land on the libravox page that says you can get free audiobooks, but it's not free, they want your email and data and so on, so they can sell you more. they even use a dot org domain name, what's going on there ? is this a not-for-profit org ? http://libravox.org/ I should mention, and someone will, that amazon made or makes a donation or donations to librivox for the care and feeding of the server or some such. Thanks amazon.
I recall that sony music stomped all over the opensource community's own efforts to make some nice short films, Sintel from Blender users was slapped with copyright claims. Also, everything NASA puts out is in the public domain, but it gets slapped down by Sony who claim they own it all.
If you think they're protecting artists you need to wake up. Search for artists sue sony for unpaid royalties, it's a good way to get a list of all your favorite artists and assemble a song-list. They are all suing Sony for the last 50 years or however long sony's been around.
If that's not clear enough that sony do not want to pay what is owed to artists, then how about their letter telling artists that sony will "no longer apply existing unrecouped balances to artists and participant earnings generated on or after January 1, 2021 for eligible artists and participants.”
Just have to keep making more free stuff to make the world a better place despite the best efforts of the small percentage trying to ruin everything. Oh wait, they're not trying to ruin everything, they're stealing candy from babies to guard against diabetes. They're Heros actually !
I guess he said it all right there, thanks for that David
yep, the old stick into the eye of the rich people, they hate that. You'd think they'd get used to it like you get used to a really really hot bath or molten lava in your trunks, but no, they see charity and have an instant aneurysm.
What's unreasonable about that ? of course letting poor people read books free means they keep their gazillions that they'd obviously have and want to pay because they're loaded. You just have to force it out of the stone. Beat them harder and you'll find every starving kid in the yemen is actually loaded with hundreds of thousands of dollars. Makes sense.david wales wrote: ↑August 14th, 2023, 3:31 pm Each side accuses the other of bad faith, and calls its opponents well-funded zealots who won’t listen to reason and want to destroy the culture.
[...]They asked damages of $150,000 a book.
I recall the amounts they claimed they'd lost for each and every blank cassette tape sold, and then when they applied the same ridiculous claim calculations to ipods, every ipod was costing the rich people more money than there was currency on planet earth. I can't find the reference to that story on the internet anymore, these things seem to get washed away, maybe someone else remembers.
The rich steal from the poor, openly. Apple for a few years would secretly delete everything on your ipod that you downloaded from the competition with your own hard earned money. Your property, your money, bad luck. "Apple security director Augustin Farrugia said the company's efforts to delete music acquired from third-party sources was done in an effort to protect consumers from hackers and malicious content."
If you type librivox incorrectly, amazon is after your data and your cash soon after that. You'll think you've come to the right place when you land on the libravox page that says you can get free audiobooks, but it's not free, they want your email and data and so on, so they can sell you more. they even use a dot org domain name, what's going on there ? is this a not-for-profit org ? http://libravox.org/ I should mention, and someone will, that amazon made or makes a donation or donations to librivox for the care and feeding of the server or some such. Thanks amazon.
I recall that sony music stomped all over the opensource community's own efforts to make some nice short films, Sintel from Blender users was slapped with copyright claims. Also, everything NASA puts out is in the public domain, but it gets slapped down by Sony who claim they own it all.
If you think they're protecting artists you need to wake up. Search for artists sue sony for unpaid royalties, it's a good way to get a list of all your favorite artists and assemble a song-list. They are all suing Sony for the last 50 years or however long sony's been around.
If that's not clear enough that sony do not want to pay what is owed to artists, then how about their letter telling artists that sony will "no longer apply existing unrecouped balances to artists and participant earnings generated on or after January 1, 2021 for eligible artists and participants.”
yep, love it. (not the tentacles, that's like, i'm not into that, not that there's anything wrong with that, oh wait, yes there is, but I don't care) but that's exactly how it is. Rich people try to steal from poor people and crush everything they do. You have to work hard and endlessly against that and not let your guard down. Is always the only solution. They don't even crush you themselves, they underpay others to do the crushing.“Companies used to sell things. Media companies now rent them instead. It’s like they have tentacles. You pull the book off the shelf and say, ‘I think I’ll keep this,’ and then the tentacle yanks it back.”
Thanks to their digital nature, e-books are treated much differently. They can’t be resold or given away. A library that wants to lend e-books must buy a license from the copyright holder. These subscriptions can be limited to a number of reads, or by periods of a year or two. Everything is tracked. Libraries own nothing.
Just have to keep making more free stuff to make the world a better place despite the best efforts of the small percentage trying to ruin everything. Oh wait, they're not trying to ruin everything, they're stealing candy from babies to guard against diabetes. They're Heros actually !
Any benefitWrote Judge John G. Koeltl of U.S. District Court in Manhattan.
"Any benefit for research and cultural participation, he said, was outweighed by harm to the publishers’ bottom line."
I guess he said it all right there, thanks for that David