The legal ruling against the Internet Archive has come down in favour of the rights of authors.

  • hoodatninja@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I still can’t believe IA took this risk, however. I agree it should’ve been fine, but they and we know it isn’t. They basically begged for this to happen and I don’t understand why when they clearly don’t have their ducks in a row to pick this fight (unlike TPB which plays the game well).

    • Corkyskog
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t understand why they kept the “emergency library” open after COVID restrictions were lifted. I think they might have had a better shot in court if they had gone back to the normal digital library protocol.

      • ZodiacSF1969
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The article says it was shutdown in June 2020, a few months after it started. Is that inaccurate?

        • warmaster@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Was the emergency library consensual in the first place? If not, then I would assume lockdown was irrelevant, legally speaking… and it would easily explain why the IA is in hot water right now.

          • Corkyskog
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            No it was not I believe. But it doesn’t mean that the COVID aspect wouldn’t be weighed into the matter. Still likely would have ended up with them losing, either way in my opinion unfortunately.

            I am way too liberal about this sort of stuff and I think you should only be able to go after sharing/pirating if you can definitively prove it’s causing greater harm to your product then it’s benefit.

            I often borrow/pirate something to end up paying for another related book, game, Shows or movies, etc. I would have never even bothered if I couldn’t have borrowed/pirated in the first place as I am not going to throw money at shit that is likely going to be crap. Pirating and free lending allows for people to get an intro to something, if it’s good it will lure users into the book/show or whatever’s universe. Causing them to be much more likely to purchase in the future.

            Then once the actuaries calculate out that number the only damages you should be able to claim are the difference, if there even is a difference.

            • hoodatninja@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              I think you should only be able to go after sharing/pirating if you can definitively prove it’s causing greater harm to your product then it’s benefit.

              The problem is that while most of us agree, we all also know that isn’t how the world works. IA is a major name, they are obviously not operating under the radar. They picked a fight they weren’t ready to take on and they should’ve known better, but instead they decided to jeopardize the entire project.

              If you want to be The Pirate Bay, then you need to play it smart like The Pirate Bay. This was reckless and short sighted.

              • Corkyskog
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Just because its not how it currently works, doesn’t mean it can’t be changed. We do have an entire branch of government to do just that. I am not optimistic positive changes will be made in that regard, but it doesn’t hurt to talk about it.