
EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers - toomuchtodo
https://torrentfreak.com/eff-heavyweight-legal-team-will-defend-internet-archives-digital-library-against-publishers-200626/
======
Gaelan
[I typed this up as a reply to a comment that has now been flagged. I think
it's a conversation worth having, so I'm putting it at the top level instead.]
I'd argue that "intellectual property" is fundamentally different from
physical property, and can't really be "stolen" per se.

If I steal your car, I have a car and you don't have a car. If I "steal" your
book, we both have the book. I'm better off, and you're no worse off. In an
"ideal" society, the free sharing of knowledge would be not just allowed, but
encouraged.

I imagine there's been measurable harm to our society's cultural and
scientific advancement because copyright forces us to recreate others' work
instead of building off of it.

But what does that world look like? Quite frankly, I'm not sure. Of course, we
can't just abolish copyright with no replacement; it's certainly necessary to
reward the creation of this work somehow.

One thing I've thought about is a sort of "crowdfunded patronage" model, where
the creator of a work declares upfront how much money they want to make off of
it, and releases it into the public domain once they've received that much
money.

Another possibility is drastically reducing the term of copyright to 20 years
or so. That'd still give 20 years to exploit the work—and I imagine most
copyrighted works make most of their money in the first 20 years—while
allowing others to reuse the work much more quickly.

~~~
thrownaway954
"If I steal your car, I have a car and you don't have a car. If I "steal" your
book, we both have the book. I'm better off, and you're no worse off. In an
"ideal" society, the free sharing of knowledge would be not just allowed, but
encouraged."

you are so wrong in this mentality. the bottom line is, that someone took the
time and energy to write and publish that book to make money, so that person
should be paid. with your mentality, it can be argued the same as downloading
a movie or a song or an application. now... aren't all those things illegal
and a form of stealing??? so why is downloading a book any different?

i really think that alot of people just don't think things though before they
open their mouth and this is one time where you should have thought through
your answer instead of jumping on the "knowledge should be free" bandwagon.

~~~
kick
Illegal does not equal immoral; copying does not equal stealing.

Piracy of songs, movies, and applications actually improves sales, according
to a study that the European Union funded and then tried to keep from getting
published:

[https://gizmodo.com/the-eu-suppressed-a-300-page-study-
that-...](https://gizmodo.com/the-eu-suppressed-a-300-page-study-that-found-
piracy-do-1818629537)

The law shouldn't guarantee you a successful business model. If you believe in
capitalism, this should be self-evident. If you believe in socialism, this
should also be self-evident. "We're going to enforce with a military your
right to a successful business model" is _absolutely_ silly and bizarrely
harmful.

~~~
thrownaway954
"Piracy of songs, movies, and applications actually improves sales, according
to a study that the European Union funded and then tried to keep from getting
published"

doesn't mean anything. it's still illegal.

~~~
boomboomsubban
If something is beneficial for everyone involved, why should it be illegal?

------
hyko
How do we back up the Internet Archive? If they lose this case then it will be
like losing The Great Library of Alexandria.

This is our culture. This is our heritage!

Edited to add: when I say “back up”, I mean preserve the data and the archival
mission (minus the legal quagmires).

The technical challenges can be solved, and we should do this before it’s too
late. It seems there was a previous effort, but it has lost momentum:
[https://www.archiveteam.org/index.php?title=INTERNETARCHIVE....](https://www.archiveteam.org/index.php?title=INTERNETARCHIVE.BAK)

~~~
mantap
It's possible that over the long term it could be backed up via torrents.
However, in the short term the only way to save the archive is for IA to sell
it. I hope they swallow their pride and do so.

~~~
sp332
Torrents are a distribution mechanism, not storage. Many IA items already have
torrent links available (with a fallback to a "web seed" since they are mostly
not seeded).

~~~
toomuchtodo
Roughly 44 million items are available via torrent (I maintain a catalog of IA
items independent of IA, with each item's torrent file). Wayback data is not
(to my knowledge). This is important, as IA then can act as a global metadata
catalog for the items, with the underlying content being served up through an
uncoordinated fleet of seeders. I think many might agree that the time has
arrived for this data to live on globally distributed storage nodes.

It would be helpful if IA published Wayback data files over torrents,
alongside cryptographic signatures of the files (for attestation and
provenance purposes, as Wayback data has been used in legal proceedings and
you would want that trust in the data maintained regardless of where the bits
were retrieved from for hydrating the WARC client side).

------
mellosouls
For anybody interested in the IA's claimed ethical and legal justifications,
they summarise and link to them at the following page:

[http://blog.archive.org/2020/03/30/internet-archive-
responds...](http://blog.archive.org/2020/03/30/internet-archive-responds-why-
we-released-the-national-emergency-library/)

~~~
ogennadi
> Yes, we’ve had authors opt out. We anticipated that would happen as well; in
> fact, we launched with clear instructions on how to opt out because we
> understand that authors and creators have been impacted by the same global
> pandemic that has shuttered libraries and left students without access to
> print books. Our takedowns are completed quickly and the submitter is
> notified via email.

~~~
chadash
It's nice that they have an easy opt-out system. But this is kind of like
spammers who have easy opt-out... better than nothing, but I shouldn't be
getting spammed in the first place.

~~~
WaltPurvis
It's worse than that. They're violating copyrights, i.e., stealing, and then
saying "if you don't want us to steal from you, we have an opt out form you
can fill out."

EDIT: People are downvoting this because I equated violating copyrights to
stealing, which is odd because US law explicitly defines copyright
infringement as stealing property. That's not debatable; it's a simple fact.
(A fact that apparently bothers some people, but being bothered by reality is
not a basis for disagreement.)

~~~
dangerlibrary
Violating copyright and stealing are fundamentally different things. If I
steal your tv, you no longer have a TV. If I pirate a book, all existing
copies of the book still exist.

If you price a book above what I'm willing to pay for it, I'm never going to
buy it. Ever. If my willingness to pay is "$0", then you can't even argue that
the creator has lost revenue if I pirate it. I was never going to buy it -
it's too expensive at any price.

You can make the argument that capitalism should exclude me from ever being
allowed to read it, because my willingness to pay is below the seller's
willingness to sell. Fair enough.

However, it's pretty tough to calculate actual economic damages here - I was
never going to buy the book, at any price. And I haven't deprived anyone else
of the ability to buy the book. You might say to me: "But you are clearly in
the target market - you wanted the book enough to pirate and read it." I
disagree - by definition, the target market must consist of people who want
the product enough to pay for it.

~~~
WaltPurvis
Your philosophical musings are not uninteresting, but they are irrelevant to
the fact that violating copyright is defined as stealing property under US
law.

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-11...](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-113)

~~~
dangerlibrary
Wow, I mean, what a counterintuitive coincidence.

Trafficking in copyrighted works constitutes theft, but a private equity firm
buying a company with debt, transferring the debt onto the company's balance
sheet, allowing it to go into bankruptcy because of enormous debt load, and
paying themselves huge bonuses along the way is not theft.

If it weren't for the fact that the U.S. federal code as it exists in June of
2020 is the definitive source of ethical and moral definitions, I would think
that maybe something _untoward_ might be going on.

~~~
ArnoVW
Seems coherent to me: you are not taking ownership of something without a
contractual basis. It would I think constitute 'misuse of corporate assets'
though.

------
TheHeretic12
I recognize some of the names here. This will be a case to watch, which ever
way it goes the constructions allowed here will percolate through the law for
years to come. This case hinges on the exact wording of the law that
authorizes the National Emergency Library. IIRC, it basically gives copyright
impunity during a declared national emergency. As far as I am aware, the
coronavirus declared national emergency is still in effect. IA loses by
attrition, is my guess. Many rounds of "Preliminary" injunctions and orders
will stop thier income streams, then they die.

~~~
Vespasian
What law does explicitly allow the NEL?

If I recall correctly, the Internet Archive decided unilaterally that they
would do this due to many libraries being closed.

I (not in the US) do not remember any changes to the copyright act being
passed to allow this.

Edit to add: They offered this globally and therefore disregarded any laws in
countries which have already settled this issue. (Hint: to my knowledge not in
a way that favors their interpretation)

~~~
nordsieck
> What law does explicitly allow the NEL?

> If I recall correctly, the Internet Archive decided unilaterally that they
> would do this due to many libraries being closed.

Exactly.

It's not even clear that "controlled digital lending" is in compliance with
copyright law[1].

The NEL or "uncontrolled digital lending" is almost certainly not in
compliance with the copyright statutes.

___

1\. It's not specifically allowed, and there hasn't been any case law on it.
To see arguments for controlled digital lending, go here:
[https://controlleddigitallending.org/whitepaper](https://controlleddigitallending.org/whitepaper)

------
loughnane
It's well established at this point that IA took a big misstep here and is too
important and singular an entity to run afoul of current laws.

To those who think IA is wrong not just tactically but morally on the basis of
"violating the law", I'd like you to consider the following:

Unjust laws exist.

\- Shall we be content to obey them?

\- Shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded?

\- Shall we transgress them at once?

~~~
aaron695
You missed the step a lot of us believe this law is moral.

So this isn't about not following unmoral laws.

More so, on top of this, many people also think it's ok in some circumstance
to break moral laws.

If someone steals food they need, then many people think that's ok. If someone
breaks copyright when they wouldn't have normally payed for the product, then
some people also think this is ok.

But I think this is none of the above.

This is a food bank openly stealing food from Walmart. Heck, if some anarchist
group broke into Walmart and stole food, even that would have more support.
But when they say what they are doing is ok and do it openly in front of
police, that's when they lose me.

~~~
SirSavary
Right, but in this scenario Walmart is closed and the people want food.

------
Siira
[https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yCWPkLi8wJvewPbEp/the-
noncen...](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yCWPkLi8wJvewPbEp/the-noncentral-
fallacy-the-worst-argument-in-the-world)

The IP apologists have successfully lodged a massive noncentral fallacy of
“unauthorized information copying = theft.” As anyone with a gram of brains
can see, the force of direct arguments against piracy is much less about their
consequences and instead focuses on just putting piracy in the category of
theft. Categories though are but arbitrary social constructs used as a
shortcut in thinking.

------
mindslight
I'd love for the Internet Archive to prevail here, but honestly it was quite
boneheaded to do this legal experiment under the same corporate umbrella as
their archival work. At this point they should proceed with a damage
mitigation strategy of selling off their servers and storage to a second
entity at fair market value (maybe "Archive Cloud"), and renting continued
access. This way even if the IA organization is bankrupted, the archive itself
will still remain intact - the archived data isn't under IA copyright and thus
wouldn't be part of the bankruptcy estate.

~~~
enriquto
> it was quite boneheaded to do this legal experiment under the same corporate
> umbrella as their archival work.

I disagree. This is a wickedly good idea, and a very good hill to fight on. It
is not a "legal experiment" but a major battle against evil people. Everybody
loves the Internet Archive, it is our sacred castle. If a decisive battle is
to be won against the publishing parasites, it may be likely this one, and we
have to be all on the same side! After Aaron Swartz, the book parasites have
never been so potentially hated by everybody. We must go all-in.

The error is on the side of the book parasites for having decided to fight
against an institution that is so loved by mankind. They cannot but lose the
battle (socially), regardless of what the short-time legal outcome is.

~~~
xhkkffbf
Dude: I'm an author. The books I write pay for the food that feeds my family.
Are you saying I'm evil for asking to be paid for my work?

I can tell you that if the IA/EFF prevail, professional authors will disappear
and the only people who will get to be artists will be those with trust funds
and rich spouses. Is that what you want the world to become?

Do you really think artists are evil for wanting to be paid?

~~~
enriquto
> Are you saying I'm evil for asking to be paid for my work?

No. I love and appreciate the work of authors, and I spend more than 1000 EUR
per year in books. I systematically buy technical books that the author offers
for free on their website. For the authors of the free software that I depend
on, I try to donate if it is possible.

To answer your question very clearly: you are not evil by asking to be paid
for your work. That is a very reasonable thing to do! Can you please point me
to your books? I will likely buy them (if they are tangentially interesting to
me).

All of that will not change the fact that sharing books is not stealing, and
that using the verb "stealing" for the act of sharing is a callous
manipulation of the language, even if it is sanctioned by law.

------
patrickhogan1
EFF - lawyers with good intentions, a bad legal case and bad facts.

vs.

Publishers - lawyers with good intentions, a good legal case and good facts.

IA = good. IA's library service = bad.

\--

Simply put, IA will lose this case* while publicly saying they "won" the case
when a settlement is reached where IA keeps the service shutdown (as it is
now) and avoids paying infringement fees (publishers are not trying to
shutdown the IA)

(e.g. IA arguing its service is a public good, because libraries failed to
provide access during COVID, when in reality public libraries dramatically
increased online access during COVID)

------
henvic
To anyone interested in this matter, I recommend

Do Business without Intellectual Property - Stephan Kinsella
[http://www.stephankinsella.com/wp-
content/uploads/publicatio...](http://www.stephankinsella.com/wp-
content/uploads/publications/kinsella-do-business-without-ip-2014.pdf), a
patent attorney who fights the very idea of IP.

------
nikisweeting
In addition to thinking about ways to back up IA, we can also start backing up
our own content and things we visit locally, so we don't become so reliant on
centralized datasets:

[https://archivebox.io](https://archivebox.io)

[https://conifer.rhizome.org/](https://conifer.rhizome.org/)

------
jjcon
EFF is on the wrong side of both the law and common sense here and they will
lose no matter how much they pay their legal team. Internet archive didn’t
just steal from ‘publishers’ they are also stealing from authors big and
small. You don’t get to give out free digital copies of books to people
without permission and expect to get away with it.

This exact digital/physical equivalence idea has already been through the
courts (for movies/television) and it failed miserably:

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/VidAngel](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/VidAngel)

> In June 2019, a jury ordered VidAngel to pay over $62 million in damages for
> copyright violations.

~~~
tzs
I may be misunderstanding this case, but the impression I get is that they are
not defending the unlimited lending that IA did as part of their "National
Emergency Library" (NEL). They are just defending the earlier "Controlled
Digital Lending" (CDL) program where the number of copies lent out at any one
time was limited to the number of physical copies in the physical libraries
[1].

The lawsuit is going after both NEL and CDL. The defense is trying to save
CDL.

I don't think VidAngel is necessarily relevant here because VidAngel was
making derivative works.

[1] If someone checked out a physical copy, did they reduce the number of
digital copies that could be out until the physical copy was returned?

~~~
gpm
> I don't think VidAngel is necessarily relevant here because VidAngel was
> making derivative works.

And also because they were circumventing DRM, which is what the Wikipedia
article would have you believe the case was about (I haven't looked closer
than that).

------
m0zg
Y'all are focusing on the wrong thing. This is categorically not about
"library" or whatever they are being sued for right now. That's just a
smokescreen.

It's a political takedown, plain and simple. It's much harder to gaslight the
public when an archive of your taken down tweets, stealth edited or censored
articles, etc is a single hyperlink away from being re-surfaced.

~~~
TouchyJoe
I sympathize with the desire of average joes to take down footage of their
smelling hair and rubbing people the wrong way. We need the internet
archive.org. Some of the best website are only to be found there.

------
MattGaiser
They should settle before even controlled digital lending is determined to not
be legally compliant.

------
bergstromm466
“1. The current political economy is based on a false idea of material
abundance. We call it pseudo-abundance. It is based on a commitment to
permanent growth, the infinite accumulation of capital and debt-driven
dynamics through compound interest. This is unsustainable, of course, because
infinite growth is logically and physically impossible in any physically
constrained, finite system.

2\. The current political economy is based on a false idea of “immaterial
scarcity.” It believes that an exaggerated set of intellectual property
monopolies—for copyrights, trademarks and patents—should restrain the sharing
of scientific, social and economic innovations. Hence the system discourages
human cooperation, excludes many people from benefiting from innovation and
slows the collective learning of humanity. In an age of grave global
challenges, the political economy keeps many practical alternatives
sequestered behind private firewalls or unfunded if they cannot generate
adequate profits. 14

These structural contradictions have always made for reduced efficiency and
irrationality. But in recent decades they have resulted in increasingly
chronic crisis tendencies, which amount to a terminal crisis of capitalism as
a system.”

\- Kevin Carson, Exodus: General Idea of the Revolution in the XXI Century

------
garmaine
Well EFF won’t be getting any more donations from me, just like I cut off IA
when they started this.

Don’t ask for money to fight a legal battle where you are so obviously in the
(legal) wrong.

~~~
myself248
How do you go about challenging a corrupt and unjust law, then?

~~~
garmaine
Through legislation. The court doesn’t have the authority to strike down a law
simply because the people don’t like it (“no longer serves the public
interest”). That’s for the legislators to do.

------
timwaagh
the reason they are doing this is the fact they are going to lose. libraries
are a relic of the past too in my opinion.

~~~
aahhahahaaa
well this is the bleakest thing I've read today

