pornplz22526 t1_jdtidvj wrote
Reply to comment by Halaku in Internet Archive Loses Lawsuit Over Ebook Copyright Infringement. Here’s What to Know... by Halaku
Right call. IA was in blatant violation of copyright law. Even as somebody who wants copyright law heavily reformed, what they were doing was a step too far.
scutiger- t1_jdv0s08 wrote
Agreed, just like you're allowed to rip a DVD movie to your computer, but doing so does not make it a derivative work and doesn't give you the right to distribute it willy nilly.
By the IA's rationale, printing an ebook would also be derivative and would negate copyright protections.
They were doing nothing wrong until they started "lending" more than one copy of a given book.
pornplz22526 t1_jdvh7qt wrote
You can't lend copies, full stop. By law, you may only lend the exact item you purchased. They would have to be mailing physical books to people in order to be following the law.
FSD also doesn't protect PC software.
RubyGuy12 t1_je2glrc wrote
The people who try and pretend the IA are entirely blameless in this drive me insane. Yes, they do a lot of incredibly important work in the preservation and spreading of knowledge. That is exactly why it was so fucking stupid of them to put it all at risk with such a massive, obvious, and public violation of copyright law when they pulled their "emergency library" stunt.
scutiger- t1_je331kg wrote
Yeah, I think the IA is great, but this seemed like a dumb move. A real library would never have tried it, I don't know why they thought they would get away with it.
[deleted] t1_jebjqf2 wrote
[deleted]
RubyGuy12 t1_jeborb6 wrote
In this instance it's when an incredibly important and otherwise legitimate institution for the preservation of knowledge and culture decides that COVID means they can just publically become a full-on piracy site for ebooks, freely providing infinite copies of any book they have in their database. A noble idea, sure, but also 100%, unambiguously illegal.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments