this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2024
2 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

59587 readers
3117 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] drislands@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (7 children)

My understanding is that the IA had implemented a digital library, where they had (whether paid or not) some number of licenses for a selection of books. This implementation had DRM of some variety that meant you could only read the book while it was checked out. In theory, this means if the IA has 10 licenses of a book, only 10 people have a usable copy they borrowed from the IA at a time.

And then the IA disabled the DRM system, somehow, and started limitlessly lending the books they had copies of to anyone that asked.

I definitely don't like the obnoxious copyright system in the USA, but what the IA did seems obviously wrong. Like if your local library got a copy of Book X and then when someone wanted to borrow it they just copied it right there and let you keep the copy.

[–] eskimofry@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Like if your local library got a copy of Book X and then when someone wanted to borrow it they just copied it right there and let you keep the copy.

That's how it works in the rest of the world.

[–] dave@feddit.uk 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What part of the rest of the world are you in?

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago

Some university library probably.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

No it isn't.

[–] MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They disabled drm during lockdown so people had something to do

[–] accideath@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Which was nice of them, but that doesn’t mean they should’ve done that, especially in the eyes of the law. (Also, if you’re after free ebooks, why are you pirating them on archive.org instead of libgen?)

[–] CondensedPossum@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (3 children)

"especially in the eyes of the law" bootlicking loser, get lost

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] CondensedPossum@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

The time for arguing with people like you is over. If you want to mewl about "wrong" when these corpos and states are trying to restrict our access to culture, fine. Keep crying. You aren't a contributor, you aren't in charge, go cry.

[–] huiccewudu@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I definitely don’t like the obnoxious copyright system in the USA, but what the IA did seems obviously wrong.

The publisher-plaintiffs did not prove the "obvious wrong" in this case, however US-based courts have a curious standard when it comes to the application of Fair Use doctrine. This case ultimately rested on the fourth, most significantly-weighted Fair Use standard in US-based courts: whether IA's digital lending harmed publisher sales during the 3-month period of unlimited digital lending.

Unfortunately, when it comes to this standard, the publisher-plaintiffs are not required to prove harm, rather only assert that harm has occurred. If they were required to prove harm they'd have to reveal sales figures for the 27 works under consideration--publishers will do anything to conceal this information and US-based courts defer to them. Therefore, IA was required to prove a negative claim--that digital lending did not hurt sales--without access to the empirical data (which in other legal contexts is shared during the discovery phase) required to prove this claim. IA offered the next best argument (see pp. 44-62 of the case document to check for yourself), but the data was deemed insufficient by the court.

In other words, on the most important test of Fair Use doctrine, which this entire case ultimately pivoted upon, IA was expected to defend itself with one arm tied behind its back. That's not 'fair' and the publishers did not prove 'obvious' harm, but the US-based courts are increasingly uninterested in these things.

edited: page numbers on linked court document.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] HexesofVexes@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

Ah, I see we're burning the Library of Alexandria again... Just as with last time, the survival of texts will rely upon copies.

[–] Stern@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Oh sure I want to read copyright books it's an issue, but OpenAI does it and it's vital to their business so they can keep going.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Lettuceeatlettuce@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Artificial scarcity at its finest. Imagine recording a song digitally, then pretending there are a limited amount of copies of that song in existence. Then you sell an agreement to another person that says they have to pretend there is only a certain made up number of copies that they bought, and if they allow more than that number of people to listen to those copies at rhe same time, they will get sued for "stealing" additional pretend copies?

I hope everybody can see how this is the insane and pathetic result of Capitalism's unrelenting drive to commodify everything it possibly can in the pursuit of profit.

As always, the solution is sailing the high seas. Throughout history, those who created or saved illegal copies/translations of literature and art were important to preserving and furthering human knowledge.

Many incredibly powerful people, empires, and countries have tried very hard to suppress that, but they keep failing. You cannot suppress the human drive for curiosity and knowledge.

[–] Ming@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 months ago

True, and the fleet is big and strong. There are many people seeding hundreds of terabytes of books/research papers/etc. The knowledge will not be lost. Yarr, can't catch me in the high seas...

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›