Comments on: The Fight Continues

By: Rev. Smith

Rev. Smith — Fri, 07 Apr 2023 19:52:33 +0000

I fail to see a cognizable complaint in this case for the simple fact that copyright interests must be held secondary and subject to those measures needed to protect the public health, such that providing no-contact access to library materials during a time in which a serious and potentially lethal disease is actively spreading among the community must be held to take automatic priority over any copyright interests that may exist. Therefore, if the court holds that Plaintiff’s copyright theory is correct in this case, the court must also hold that plaintiff is automatically civilly liable for any COVID infection that occurs as a direct and proximate result of plaintiff in this case asserting their copyright rights, such that Plaintiff is mandated to accept the entire legal package, including criminal and civil liability, that comes with the right asserted, such that Plaintiff cannot assert a right without accepting all of the legal liabilities that automatically come with plaintiff exercising that right.

By: Jon

Jon — Fri, 07 Apr 2023 00:14:54 +0000

What’s next? Would publishers try to stop allowing people from selling used books everywhere including Amazon and even local pawn shops?

By: Todd Schoolcraft

Todd Schoolcraft — Thu, 06 Apr 2023 22:26:02 +0000

Half the stuff on IA is so old that its worthless to the copyright owners or the copyright owners don’t exixst anymore. IA is a digital library, and others like it would be hurt if copyright owners have their dispicable way.

By: Todd Schoolcraft

Todd Schoolcraft — Thu, 06 Apr 2023 22:23:32 +0000

In reply to David Lynch. Half the stuff on IA is so old that its worthless to the copyright owners or the copyright owners don't exixst anymore. IA is a digital library, and others like it would be hurt if copyright owners have their dispicable way.

By: AnitaF

AnitaF — Thu, 06 Apr 2023 02:22:00 +0000

In reply to Sarah. Libraries are INDEED dangerous, for the same reason it was said "the pen is mightier than the sword". They are repositories of knowledge, and knowledge is power. Knowledge is not happiness, and protecting people from knowledge is keeping them stupid. You can say that you have smart kids. But kids do not stay kids forever, and even if they are smart, without reading and writing their intelligence does little good. Libraries historically promoted literacy, and they are all going online now. If you want to protect your kids from the internet until they are wise enough to make good decisions, consider this: Intelligence is not wisdom, and wisdom can be passed on to those willing to learn it. You cut off the tallest stalks and blades of wheat. This way, you can tower over everyone else who is left.

By: userafw

userafw — Thu, 06 Apr 2023 02:05:44 +0000

In reply to Quincy McGoo. This is EXACTLY why I keep some materials OFFLINE, and usually in printed format. If it is not online, it is subject to search and seizure rules. Businesses do the exact same thing with their proprietary business files, as does the US government with confidential information - they store records in file cabinets and in secured systems that do not have direct access to the internet. I will not be buying any books from the publishers bringing this lawsuit in the foreseeable future. If they succeed, they will destroy both the internet and society itself, and have the full support of the law in rewriting history to their liking. Oh, and all these comments go away if the internet archive goes away. So there.

By: Anita F

Anita F — Thu, 06 Apr 2023 01:49:58 +0000

In reply to Daniel Sauers.

Not only are no infringements of any kind intended, but the copyright holders are trying to force tracking on to archive readers in the form of copyright protections. I believe this to be unreasonable search and seizure.
If electronic records are property, then the suspicion of “theft” should be subject to search and seizure limitations. Papers are also specified in the constitution as being subject to search and seizure limitations. I do not believe the original spirit of the law to exclude digital papers from this.

Otherwise, it is like saying, “Your t-shirt looks like mine, so you must have stolen my T-shirt. I’m calling the police to search your house for my T-shirt so they can confiscate it and give it back to me. Prove to me you don’t have my T-shirt”.

By: Sarah

Sarah — Wed, 05 Apr 2023 20:19:44 +0000

In reply to Lisa. @Lisa We thank you for your service, Lisa. Both on behalf of our country AND on behalf of our libraries, whether physical or virtual.

By: C

Wed, 05 Apr 2023 14:20:13 +0000

Not all digital copies are the same. The digital books created by the publishers are usually multimedia products. Some have video, animation, text alteration features, text to speech, music, etc. — all features above those provided by IA. Scans are a direct copy put in read-only electronic format and when distributed as a direct copy of a volume which is owned — not violating copyright law when loaned on a one paper copy – to – one electronic copy basis. There is no doubt that the electronic version of a book created by a publisher/author is entitled to be sold or loaned under license, for it is a different product with a different ISBN number.
It is, of course, a master stroke of publishers to refer to all electronic copies as being equal under the law. It is unfortunate that the Judge in this matter failed (or refused) to differentiate between the two.

By: James Bayer

James Bayer — Tue, 04 Apr 2023 00:08:08 +0000

In reply to Ali. I'm with you 100 per cent. Many more books and movies should be here because once copyright expires published works become the property of humanity. Hatchette is only about censorship.