09-07-2024, 12:39 AM
This post was last modified 09-07-2024, 12:41 AM by Maxmars.
Edit Reason: formatting
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!
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!
