[pzh]

I think one argument that they could make is that regular libraries are closed during the pandemic and there are thousands of physical copies that people can’t borrow because of the closures. Hence, their making available more digital copies than they physically own can be somewhat justified. The fact that they made that number unbounded is what’s most problematic. Had they just increased their limits by some guesstimated number of unavailable books, it would’ve made for a much easier day in court.

[zozbot234]

> Had they just increased their limits by some guesstimated number of unavailable books, it would’ve made for a much easier day in court.

My guess is that this is exactly what they did and specifically, that they're cooperating with a number of currently-closed libraries so that they can still claim to have one book kept in storage for each book that's lent out, when accounting for those libraries' physical holdings. They just used the word "unlimited" as a convenient shortcut in describing their new policy, much like ISP's and their "unlimited but not really" data caps.

[sonofaplum]

This is just a fantasy. We are now just pretending that IA did something other than what they actually did?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/30/books/internet-archive-em...

> Public libraries get licenses from publishers for the e-books they lend, and publishers receive payments, according to the terms that are set. Internet Archive doesn’t get licenses from publishers but instead relies on donated or purchased books or copies it acquires through collaborations with physical libraries. The books are then scanned and made available for one borrower at a time, for 14 days. With that restriction removed, the archive is now operating more or less like a free digital book site.

[zozbot234]

Sorry but that article is definitely inaccurate. As I wrote in a sibling comment, the NEL is still lending out books with a DRM-enforced "check out". That restriction is very much in effect! And my point is that we simply don't know how far their claim to "unlimited" lending should be taken.

[hn_check]

They made no claims to this effect, have announced zero partnership, and instead made claims entirely contrary to this. It seems remarkably specious and apologist to imagine this as an argument now.

I don't even get why IA did this, or why they threatened the project itself with this side project. Many people gave money to the project for the internet archiving, not some sort of robinhood book distribution system. Whoever did this should have created a completely separate side project instead of effectively bankrupting the meaningful, justifiable project in the process.

[zozbot234]

> They made no claims to this effect, have announced zero partnership, and instead made claims entirely contrary to this.

It makes sense that they would do this if they were actively trying to lure the pro-copyright camp (Authors' Guild and publishers) into a difficult-to-defend and highly unpopular position. I agree that it seems a bit unrealistic, but surely the IA had to know that a lawsuit would be filed given their public claims wrt. the NEL.

[Silhouette]

It makes sense that they would do this if they were actively trying to lure the pro-copyright camp (Authors' Guild and publishers) into a difficult-to-defend and highly unpopular position.

That position being that the IA shouldn't do what the law says you aren't allowed to do? That doesn't seem very difficult to defend at all, and it's going to be unpopular with the kind of person who thinks copyright shouldn't exist but probably less so with the people who created those works if they aren't getting paid as they should be.

I'm a little wary of saying much here because copyright disputes often seem to end up having relevant details that were omitted from some reporting on them. But if the IA really is making and distributing an unlimited number of copies of a protected work, isn't that exactly the act that copyright was designed to prohibit?

[nybble41]

> That position being that the IA shouldn't do what the law says you aren't allowed to do?

But does it say that? Their status as an officially-recognized library means they're operating by different rules than most private citizens. Libraries are (sometimes) allowed to make copies of copyrighted works without asking anyone's permission. It's entirely possible that the limitations they imposed on digital lending prior to this event were merely a expression of courtesy—or excess caution—and not an actual legal obligation.

[zozbot234]

> Libraries are (sometimes) allowed to make copies of copyrighted works without asking anyone's permission.

Libraries can make copies for preservation purposes, but that's not the same thing as making those copies generally available. The latter is not something that they're permitted to do outside of special circumstances. So I think your argument is going too far - there are clear reasons why the Open Library's lending works the way it does.

[ghaff]

In the US, as far as I can tell, there's no such thing as an officially-recognized library--at least at the federal level unless you're talking about the Library of Congress.

The IA is a 501(c)(3) organization but they're not a "library" in that filing (which may not even be a specific option).

Classification (NTEE) Human Service Organizations - Multipurpose (Human Services — Multipurpose and Other)

Nonprofit Tax Code Designation: 501(c)(3) Defined as: Organizations for any of the following purposes: religious, educational, charitable, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition (as long as it doesn’t provide athletic facilities or equipment), or the prevention of cruelty to children or animals.

But, sure, they look like a library so they're free to call themselves one. But that doesn't actually confer a lot of special privileges.

[Silhouette]

Yes, it does say that. Libraries generally don't allow people to make copies of complete works, and for good reason. Copyright laws often have special provisions for specific purposes like archival, but that isn't what's being described here.

[xhkkffbf]

It's baloney. Powell books was open and hiring staff to handle online orders. And if you must, there was also Amazon.

[triceratops]

A book store is not a library. We taxpayers have already paid for libraries.

[nickff]

Well, taxpayers have paid for certain libraries, which have mostly been closed. If you want to get what you've paid for, you should probably talk to your municipal, state, and perhaps federal representatives.

The fact that you paid one entity for a service (which they are not providing,) does not entitle you to collect it from another entity.

[triceratops]

I never said anything about being entitled to anything, please don't put words in my mouth. I'm just pointing out something that should be obvious - a bookstore isn't a library. And telling people who have already paid their taxes to go use a bookstore is offensive.

[arkades]

Turns out "people are bored and entertainment isn't as freely available" is maybe not a great justification for stealing people's stuff.

I also know of a large number of libraries (e.g., NYPL) that suspended their requirement that people verify their address, so realistically, anyone anywhere could register an ebook-only library card and avail themselves.

[Semaphor]

> Turns out "people are bored and entertainment isn't as freely available" is maybe not a great justification for stealing people's stuff.

Luckily absolutely nothing was stolen.

[arkades]

You can assert copying isn't stealing, but the part where "I have something I didn't have a minute ago, and would normally have to pay money to acquire it, but didn't" is pretty clear-cut.

Just because someone wasn't deprived of the thing you now have doesn't mean they weren't deprived of something of value, and pretending otherwise is a juvenile see-no-evil defense.

[iopq]

That's literally why it's not stealing. It's not legal, but it's also by definition not theft.

[unreal37]

Agreed. "Piracy isn't theft" is such a cliche in these arguments.

The people downloading the books, music, movies, etc are getting something that they want, that normally costs money, for free.

Come up with a new word if it isn't theft. But it looks and acts like theft.

[Semaphor]

> and pretending otherwise is a juvenile see-no-evil defense.

And luckily I did not say that anywhere.