Hacker News Reader

Comment by shervinafshar | Hacker News Reader

Not a IP lawyer here, but I speculate that when and if this lawsuit goes to higher courts, the fact that IA was acting in favour of the public in a national emergency would be in their favor.

View on HN

The plaintiffs will ask "if this was the case why did you not work with libraries to ensure that copies loaned were backed by physical copies"?

And they will ask "why did you not put forward a good faith effort to work with publishers?"

Then they will ask "why did you not reach out to any legislators or executives to seek an exemption?"

And IA will have no answer other than "because we are a law unto ourselves".

I can imagine the answer to all those questions from IA wouldn't be "because we are a law unto ourselves" as you suggested, but it would be along the lines that following bureaucratic channels during a national emergency to be able to help the public with availability of books, would have been slow and hence counterproductive.

In this country, laws have a interesting way to bend during national crises. I'll keep my fingers cross for that in this case.

>following bureaucratic channels ...would have been slow and hence counterproductive.

The courts will understand this to effectively be "we are a law unto ourselves". Those determinations are properly made by the mayor, governor, president, or legislative body-- not some random .org.

"random .org"? IA? That concludes our fun conversation from my point of view. We'll just have to wait and see.

Yes, the IA has no special legal, regulatory, or advisory rights that i am aware of, which makes it in the eyes of the court just another .org.

Whatever special role you or I think it plays in the world has zero bearing on the outcome of this case.

You made your point very clear. Regretfully, I can not agree with your fervent enthusiasm for the law of the land in this case that this is an obvious and open-and-shut case of illegal conduct that one might very much want it to appear. This is based on the assessments of experts such as the Copyright Office on the case and the nuances reflected in it.

As I said, we'll have to wait and see. I do look forward to it. In the mean time these are the tiny actions I'll be taking in support of IA (1) I double my donations to the IA and match donations of any friends and acquaintances, (2) the four conglomerate publishers are boycotted until further notice.

And remember, the Internet always finds a way, if its short history has taught us anything.

That won't fly because it is just as easy to lay claim that ignoring copyright is against the public because it devalues private property rights of which the creator did not assign to the IA.

Copyright Office mostly agrees with you in their response to an inquiry about IA National Emergency Library by a senator[1].

But there are things in that response to distinguish IA actions and motives from other bête noires of Copyright law (The Pirate Bay, etc.) That would give IA and their supporters something to work with; intents, outcomes, and the limited nature of IA NEL would (hopefully) harness publishers opportunism in the view of the law.

[1]: https://www.copyright.gov/laws/hearings/Sen-Udall-Response-N...

The argument being put forward here is as if IA just broken into peoples houses and redistributed 3m masks, and tried to justify it because they're doing good.

I agree! Many people are grossly exaggerating the harm so that they can scoff at the justification of "doing good".

Fine, but the good has been exaggerated too. Some people who heard about this were able to read a book or two for free during a time when everyone was stuck in their house. That's a good gesture that I'm sure was appreciated, but they didn't change anyone's life here.

And it was a gesture that was not theirs to make. Did they ever consider just asking the publishers for permission? They might actually have gotten it. Companies were quite eager to do things to show they were trying to help back in March and April. But I've looked and found nothing saying they asked, so I'm guessing they didn't. Probably because they thought asking would look bad if they were told "no" and did it anyway.

The justification of doing good would land the perpetrators from my post in jail for breaking, entering, and theft.

We are a society of laws passed by representatives, not formed in one's mind on the spot.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com