Hachette's owners see an opportunity here to destroy a public good, and they are taking it. Hachette are the bad actors trying to destroy what you find valuable, not the IA.
Hachette's owners see an opportunity here to destroy a public good, and they are taking it. Hachette are the bad actors trying to destroy what you find valuable, not the IA.
Hachette obviously benefits from teaching would-be unlimited "lenders" a lesson. Even anti-DRM, "buy my books only if you can afford" authors were against this hare-brained lending scheme because the IA didn't even bother to buy a single copy of the books they were "lending".
The blame squarely falls at the IA's feet; being an idealist doesn't give you the rights to delve into illegal behavior, regardless of the righteousness of your cause or the depth of your conviction. If the world is better with an org in it, and it jeopardizes it's own ability to remain a going concern, it's clear to me who is culpable. "Too good to die" doesn't exist.
Just to be clear, it is your position that the IA's Wayback Machine and abandonware archives should also not exist, right?
No, I fully support these missions. Both have defensible fair use protections and do not try to break new legal ground with flimsy justifications. I wish the IA were little more aggressive about not retroactively applying robots.txt rules on archived content.
It's hard to reconcile how overly careful they are with the Wayback Machine compared to the carelessness of unlimited lending. I am livid they risked their priceless archives for book piracy - that's not a great hill to die on.
Indeed. It's maybe worth reflecting on the apparent conflict there. What info are you missing, that could explain the conflict? The IA folks aren't crazy, but they are opinionated and willing to take action where others might not, and the world was in a very crazy state at the time the decision was made. Consider some sympathy for the people leading the project you feel so passionately about.
It can be right or wrong, i don't know. I want organizations to fight the battles that gain us new rights and freedoms. I know that they have a lot to lose here though, and they shouldn't risk it.
Concretely, I was a big individual donor to the IA until this lawsuit. I support their mission, I love their work, I help (technically and financially) other organizations like local museums and non-profits handle their archival work. This is something important to me, and I really want their archives to persist.
I stopped donating to the IA - and won't resume - until this lawsuit is resolved. I don't want to donate to the book publishers, and it looks that's going to be the outcome of their entire funds.
Is it really? The cynical side of me wonders if it just might be intentional. What if this is a nonprofit analogue to VC monetization? Do you dislike an existing law? Create a similar but legal service you know other people will appreciate, use donations to undercut competitors and become the defacto monopoly, ride the network effect to a large crowd that basically relies on you, then rugpull by tying their narrow, legal use to your crusade for a different legal system by infecting their data with illegal material and declaring the whole thing must sink or swim together. Now your users have to pay you to fight your policy crusade or they lose their already legal resource they value much more, and you can use your legal half as a moral shield to get approval from anyone who only had the time to read the headline when the prosecution inevitably shows up at your door. All you need yo hold the almost-grift together is to lie by omission about who instigated it all.
They've stopped doing that. They now ignore robots.txt completely and you have to email them to stop them.
If they'd applied that same level to the books, they might have avoided this mess.
I have plenty of issues with copyright law as it's currently written and wholeheartedly support copyright reform. That's very different from any one party unilaterally suspending copyright "because of COVID"
This way of thinking is the reason why we are losing so many great things. Laws are created by people to support a society we want to live in. When laws no longer sever the society, then the society must rise up and change them. Like with any bug, fixing it early is cheaper than fixing it later.
> it's clear to me who is culpable
"Look what you made me do. If you hadn't acted up I wouldn't have had to destroy you."
I’m not sure it’s exceedingly rare for an author to not make some beer money on top of single dollar advances but it’s not a full-time job for many authors. It mostly works to support the day job or as a hobby.
But many authors might as well self-publish today. I mostly have.
> The vast, VAST majority of money that an author makes is from their advance. It is exceedingly rare for a book to sell even enough to cover that advance, and even rarer for it to have sales strong enough that the author sees meaningful, life changing residuals.
This is how author advances would work in a world without copyright: authors would self-publish their books, and there would be no advances. If the book proved to be popular and successful, all the major distribution platforms would "pirate" it and pay them nothing. No conceivable DRM would save the author's income, because the platforms can afford to pay people to manually key in the work.
Think about it. If there is no copyright, why would anyone pay an advance?
Doesn't this apply to every mass-market creative endeavor - software engineering included? There a whole lot of machinery sitting between {code|book} author and the paying consumers, leveraging efficiency of scale and demanding a pound of flesh in return. Agents, editors, lawyers, proof readers, marketers, book cover artists, sales people, type-setters, and requisite admin support staff all of them necessary to publish and distribute books at scale. If you think authors don't need an entire industry behind them, try sifting through the self-published dreck on Amazon.
> This way of thinking is the reason why we are losing so many great things. Laws are created by people to support a society we want to live in. When laws no longer sever the society, then the society must rise up and change them. Like with any bug, fixing it early is cheaper than fixing it later.
Let me put it bluntly: the IA went about pursuing that change in stupid and impulsive way, and their actions may very well accomplish nothing while causing us to lose more "great things."
"I'm going to pretend the laws I don't like don't exist in order to try to change them," is an activity for people with little other responsibility and little to lose.
In hindsight, if the IA wanted to try something like the "National Emergency Library," they should have set up an independent entity to take the fall and contain the damage if it didn't work out. And since they didn't do that, they should probably have tried really hard to settle and fight another day than go down in a blaze of glory.
Thank you for spelling this correctly!
... Illegal as defined by the highly paid lobbyists of the trillion dollar copyright monopolies? It boggles my mind that such "laws" are even considered legitimate.
> "Too good to die" doesn't exist.
Tell that to Wikipedia and several other organizations which put a stop to stuff like SOPA/PIPA with a single day of blackout. I want to see them try to destroy Wikipedia over copyright nonsense.
You demonize Hachette et al (4 major publishers) as seeking to destroy a public good. In fact, they've already settled with the IA, as of last August 2023, in a manner that caps costs to IA at a survivable level and sets clear mutually-acceptable rules for future activity.
You imply IA would dismiss the appeal if the plaintiffs "could drop enforcement of the judgement". In fact, there were never any assessed damages, the parties have already reached a mutually-acceptable settlement per above, and despite that – in fact, as part of the settlement! – the IA has retained the right to appeal regarding the fair-use principles that are important to them.
Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hachette_v._Internet_Archive#F...
>On August 11, 2023, the parties reached a negotiated judgment. The agreement prescribes a permanent injunction against the Internet Archive preventing it from distributing the plaintiffs' books, except those for which no e-book is currently available,[3] as well as an undisclosed payment to the plaintiffs.[25][26] The agreement also preserves the right for the Internet Archive to appeal the previous ruling.[25][26]
IA's August 2023 statement on how much will continue despite the injunction & settlement limits: https://blog.archive.org/2023/08/17/what-the-hachette-v-inte...
>Because this case was limited to our book lending program, the injunction does not significantly impact our other library services. The Internet Archive may still digitize books for preservation purposes, and may still provide access to our digital collections in a number of ways, including through interlibrary loan and by making accessible formats available to people with qualified print disabilities. We may continue to display “short portions” of books as is consistent with fair use—for example, Wikipedia references (as shown in the image above). The injunction does not affect lending of out-of-print books. And of course, the Internet Archive will still make millions of public domain texts available to the public without restriction.
Be not confused. Lunduke's blog is a sensationalist tech tabloid. Every article is like that -- elevating mundane disagreements in open source projects to huge proportions, without doing nearly enough research to be called journalism.
How do you know that? The last I saw, the penalty was still undisclosed.
They're probably just making sure that the next place that wants to pull something funny, doesn't.
Ye old "lets make an example out of them" thing.
They do: Legal precedent.
IA made themselves into an easy, prominent target by doing something everyone else agreed to not do via Gentlemens' Agreements(tm) and precedents set by lesser transgressions, so now they're reaping what they sowed.
The book publishers stand to gain legal precedent that doing what IA did can and will result in legal consequences severe enough to ruin you.
Quite possibly on behalf of some other entities in their same bed that don't like information to be free and preserved.