Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54716 readers

233 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others

Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):

💰 Please help cover server costs.


Ko-fi	Liberapay

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

366

Internet Archive forced to remove 500,000 books after publishers’ court win (arstechnica.com)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

45 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 36 points 5 months ago (1 children)

But I think the law is pretty clear, and a precedent calling their use case fair use would be mind blowing. You need new, much more common sense IP legislation that redefines consumer rights in a digital world.

Indeed. I'm a big supporter of IA's mission, and I'm a big supporter of piracy (copyright has gone insane over the years), but this outcome was obvious from the moment IA did this and it was a mistake for them to fight this fight. They should focus on preservation. Let the EFF handle the lawsuits, and let Library Genesis handle the illegal distribution of books. Everyone focus on what they're best at.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

Their distribution of books is completely legal.

Corporations just have more money to warp the laws in their favour.

That's why the Archive is appealing: they still believe they are right.

[–] conciselyverbose 8 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

There's really no credible argument that their distribution of books even might be legal.

Their only defense is fair use, and there's no precedent for a "fair use" defense justifying copying a work wholesale for mass distribution. (Yes, "one copy at a time" to multiple people is mass distribution.) Copying a whole work has effectively only qualified as fair use when that copy is not re-distributed, and is actually for a personal backup.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Their distribution of books is completely legal.

Corporations just have more money to warp the laws in their favour.

You just contradicted yourself in two sentences.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Oh, you believe law is fair? You sound so cute.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

What did I say that implied that? I'm pointing out a contradiction in kilgore's comment, I'm not adding anything of my own here.