How to keep people from reading

[Maxmars]

It took me a while to decide where to place this particular thread.

I knew from the start that it would be a form of rant, but the topic seemed relevant from other perspectives too.

The thing that started my thinking in the regard was a court case.  A lawsuit... or rather, an appeal of a decision made in another court.

This is about a website... namely, the Internet Archive.  I am unaffiliate with them, although I have frequented the site on occasion to peruse their collection of materials for research and entertainment purposes.

Case ruling: Case 23-1260, Document 306-1, 09/04/2024
Article from ArsTechnica: Internet Archive’s e-book lending is not fair use, appeals court rules

The site in question collects books, media, and other archival materials which, I had always presumed were made available under the legal domain of the legendary "fair use doctrine" (by anyone)... you know... predominantly "older materials," things which users have submitted for sharing... nothing commercial, mind you, nothing you would need to buy... and in most cases you couldn't buy because no one is 'selling' it anymore, or original composite works made for topic exploration, or commentary.

This is a story about intellectual property rights.  They "own" the works in question by contract and copyright... which many are inclined to support wholeheartedly.  Most of the works in question (actually all) were intended... specifically created.. to be shared freely among anyone in the public.  But some of the entries feature 'movies,' 'tv shows,' broadcast archives, foreign media, uploaded by members accounts.

But the organizations, and perhaps even individuals, the plaintiffs complain that the public, by no agency, have the right to access them without paying them for the privilege.  The court ruled in the original case that the plaintiffs had not proved that they had suffered real damages... and ruled that a free library of media on the internet is not different from any other library, which have operated in this country nearly since our birth as a nation.

After appealing the case in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals have won their case, despite no damages suffered.  That library will be gutted.  It is an effort which is (and has been) ongoing for a long time...  
 

---

This appeal presents the following question: is it “fair use” for a nonprofitorganization to scan copyright-protected print books in their entirety anddistribute those digital copies online, in full, for free, subject to a one-to-oneowned-to-loaned ratio between its print copies and the digital copies it makesavailable at any given time, all without authorization from the copyright-holdingpublishers or authors? Applying the relevant provisions of the Copyright Act aswell as binding Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent, we conclude theanswer is no. We therefore AFFIRM. 

---

(The affirmation was to nullify the effects of the first ruling...)

The key assertion here is "all without authorization from the copyright-holdingpublishers or authors? " which is indicative of what the plaintiffs "sell."
This is, and always was, about money.  It calls to mind a new phrase in our recent vocabulary... "unrealized capital gains" (the latest "econo-target.")

It disappoints me that we have completely lost the actual purpose of creating works of human expression... namely, to share them.  (Instead we "monetize them" and make the idea of 'freely sharing them' regarded as unjust.)

I suppose that not many approach this problem as I do... I see it as yet another factor which will lead to people only reading what they are given, unless they can afford to pay.  It raises the question of publisher's exerting legal control over works...  some created long (long) ago...

As I said before, I have no connection to the Internet Archive... not even an account... but I think they need support... Just sayin'

Thanks for hearing me out! 

[ArMaP]

I have been expecting something like this.

One thing is doing it like the Project Gutenberg does: scan a copyright-free book, convert it to text, proof-read it and post only the text (or text with some kind of formatting).

A copyright-free book (because the author died 75 years ago or more, or something similar, according to country) is only copyright-free for the text, someone created the cover and formatted the book with that type of letter, spacing, etc.
That work is not copyright-free unless the publisher gives it away, so they really have the right for their own copyright, not over the text but over the book's general look.

PS: I have seen copyrighted materials on the Internet Archive and have wondered when they would be a victim of lawsuits.

PPS: this weak, in Portugal, we got the news that last year more books were sold and that they were mostly bought by younger people.

[FlyingClayDisk]

...I see it as yet another factor which will lead to people only reading what they are given, ...

^^^^THIS!!^^^^

Yes, it is about money, but I believe there is also a darker underpinning and that is one of control.

Whenever I see a 'plaintiff' seeking legal remedy when no injury (damage) has occurred it gives me pause to think about their motivations.  Clearly no publisher of some antique work who is no longer in business can lay claim to that work or its publication.  So, while on the face of it may seem to be about money, the darker reality is someone wants to remove the work from circulation by seeking such an oblique and obtuse allegation.

[l0st]

^^^^THIS!!^^^^

Yes, it is about money, but I believe there is also a darker underpinning and that is one of control.

Whenever I see a 'plaintiff' seeking legal remedy when no injury (damage) has occurred it gives me pause to think about their motivations.  Clearly no publisher of some antique work who is no longer in business can lay claim to that work or its publication.  So, while on the face of it may seem to be about money, the darker reality is someone wants to remove the work from circulation by seeking such an oblique and obtuse allegation.

Its an interesting conundrum. I believe it used to be, at least in the US, 25 years of copyright, then you could extend up to two more times *if* you could prove that your "novel" contribution should not be used by others.

What we have now are a ton of copyright trolls who buy the rights to old stuff then go after those who use it. When the copyright is up, they re-release a very similar "digitally remastered" version of whatever that can't be told apart from the original and continue suing people.

I see this and have experienced it myself on YouTube. You can use an old version, technically un-copyrighted, but the autobot will flag you for copyright infringement. Then, you have to prove the version you used wasn't the no longer copywritten one - if that's even possible. You can even get this kind of reaction posting stuff (like background music) that's creative-commons licensed but sounds "too similar" to the original "according to the bot."

I did a live karaoke thing on YouTube for a stint. All of the works used were licensed for public reproduction and not originals. That doesn't stop the Goog, however. Even when providing documentation of the paid licensing with boilerplate from the clearinghouse agreeing, Goog decides you ain't gettin' no cash.

Ought to be illegal, IMHO. Technically it is, but how does one challenge the "goog AI"?

But yes, they use this stuff as a method to remove anything they disagree with from public consumption. In my case, there were a lot of older songs involved with potentially "racy" lyrics that I guess Goog just doesn't agree with having posted due to content.

Personally, I think any entity that poses such a challenge should have the burden of proving that said challenge is legit. As it stands now, they just quote DMCA and the site takes it down without recourse. Your only recourse as the poster is to sue them. Lawfare should be illegal as well. Just my 2 cents.

[ArMaP]

Its an interesting conundrum. I believe it used to be, at least in the US, 25 years of copyright, then you could extend up to two more times *if* you could prove that your "novel" contribution should not be used by others.

In the US is 70 years after the creator's death for works published after 1978.
That avoids situations like Charlie Chaplin had, in which he had to make a few changes to his older movies so he wouldn't lose the copyright while still alive.

Personally, I think any entity that poses such a challenge should have the burden of proving that said challenge is legit. As it stands now, they just quote DMCA and the site takes it down without recourse. Your only recourse as the poster is to sue them. Lawfare should be illegal as well. Just my 2 cents.

That's why registration of any work is recommended, so the creator can prove easily they were the original creators.

[UltraBudgie]

Huh well is it stealing?  I guess if it were paper then yeah it would be pretty obvious if you take it cause it isn't there any more.  But computer book are just copies so there no nothing left if you take it cause its still there. So call it sharing, right? But maybe thats just to feel good like its not wrong.  And old books that are the best really are free anyway with no copyright so downloading doesnt feel bad.  You're right with what the authors want! With regard to sharing, and why they wrote it in the first place. Most of them anyway. There some authors of course who do it mainly for the bucks and some who while its not important live a life where they need it for food and rent and then I guess its stealing and bad. But the main money thing is the big companies that own the copy rights and yeah they pay the authors but squeeze that deal and really pay them just what they need to keep writing haha. They want to make money not by selling books and videos but by becoming part of your life that you need so you have to go to them to get what you want to entertain or inform and then they turn that into money because its info gathering and control. They share that data you know like with secret agreements.  So is that stealing if they cant do that as well?  Its weird because the karma doesn't seem to think so almost like it's okay but maybe not perhaps its more subtle and thats why so many new books and movies and tv shows are garbage haha.

[ArMaP]

Huh well is it stealing?  I guess if it were paper then yeah it would be pretty obvious if you take it cause it isn't there any more.  But computer book are just copies so there no nothing left if you take it cause its still there.

It is stealing because it takes away the possibility of selling a book to the readers that download them.

But, from my experience, people that download books, songs and movies are not the kind of people that would have bought the book, song or movie if it wasn't free.

[UltraBudgie]

It is stealing because it takes away the possibility of selling a book to the readers that download them.

But, from my experience, people that download books, songs and movies are not the kind of people that would have bought the book, song or movie if it wasn't free.

Okay then is that possibility real then which is why I was wondering if it is really stealing and I found this that is interesting although not the burn convention haha:
 

That is not to say, however, that property or copyright-defined-as-property in Jewish law resembles the “sole and despotic dominion” that William Blackstone famously presented as the mythic ideal of property.36 To the contrary, in some respects, the Jewish law and understanding of property deviate even more substantially from that ideal than does the common law. According to rabbinic tradition, indeed, the primary sin committed by the people of Sodom was to insist on the absolute primacy of property, declaring that “what is mine is mine and what is yours is yours,” and thus refusing to share or countenance another’s use of one’s property that benefits the user but causes no harm to the owner.37 Such spiteful, miserly behavior is regarded not merely as morally reprehensible; under certain circumstances, Jewish law affirmatively requires a property owner to allow another to benefit from using his property free of charge, so long as the property owner suffers no (other) loss from the use. Concomitantly, neither does Jewish law regard benefiting from another’s property without causing any loss to the owner as unjust enrichment.38

As applied by rabbinic jurists, the rule against acting like a Sodomite gives rise to three possible limitations on copyright, even assuming that copyright is property. First, if an author has created and disseminated his work with no intention of profiting from it, he might be acting like a Sodomite were he to insist upon payment after the fact.39 Second, the rule against Sodomite behavior supports the view of some rabbinic jurists that private copying is permitted so long as the copyist would not have otherwise purchased the copy and thus causes the author no loss.40 Third, the rule might be the basis for limiting copyright’s duration for published works.

(Page 250): From Maimonides to Microsoft: The Jewish Law of Copyright Since the Birth of Print

Which may be more moral I dunno but certainly worth considering other traditions maybe wisdom there.

I also wonder if its the book sales or the data that the big companies don't want to lose like if you offered amazon "hey we're gonna give your books away but we'll send you all that data on what people browse and search for and how many seconds they spend on each page and when they read on the pooper and what words they have to look up and what they search for after and everything you would collect from their kindles and you can use that data and sell it and train your ais to figure people out with it and everything we're just not gonna give you any cash per book anymore you can just have that data exclusive for free" I bet they'd take that deal in a heartbeat lol.

[ArMaP]

I also wonder if its the book sales or the data that the big companies don't want to lose like if you offered amazon "hey we're gonna give your books away but we'll send you all that data on what people browse and search for and how many seconds they spend on each page and when they read on the pooper and what words they have to look up and what they search for after and everything you would collect from their kindles and you can use that data and sell it and train your ais to figure people out with it and everything we're just not gonna give you any cash per book anymore you can just have that data exclusive for free" I bet they'd take that deal in a heartbeat lol.

In the case that started this thread, the Internet Archive was freely distributing scanned copies of books, not the books' content as the Project Gutenberg does, and that's what the publishers were against, the free distribution of images of their physical books.
Although the authors own the copyrights for the text, the way the book was printed and the cover are, usually, a creation from the publisher, so that also has a copyright.

So, in this case, as they were copying physical books, there was no "data" they were losing.

[Maxmars]

I guess I don't really care about protecting the "vehicle" of authors'/artists' dissemination as much as the thing which is supposedly meant to be disseminated.

I get the commercial "protection" angle.  (Although I question it's sincerity as a moral justification.)

I'm just an old-fashioned thinker who values the idea of people reading more, and having more access...
But this is not a world of my design... and what I value is for my perspective, not the perspective of professional vanity or commercial exploitability...

Artistic and technical creators in our collective culture should be encouraged and supported... but without sharing the actual creation, it's all an empty exercise reduced to dollars and cents. 

But that's just me.