this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2024

200 points (99.5% liked)

News

23311 readers

3660 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

rjc@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

dezmd@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

Blackbeard@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

jeffw@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

200

The Internet Archive Loses Its Appeal of a Major Copyright Case (www.wired.com)

submitted 2 months ago by breakfastmtn@lemmy.ca to c/news@lemmy.world

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The Internet Archive has lost a major legal battle—in a decision that could have a significant impact on the future of internet history. Today, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled against the long-running digital archive, upholding an earlier ruling in Hachette v. Internet Archive that found that one of the Internet Archive’s book digitization projects violated copyright law.

Notably, the appeals court’s ruling rejects the Internet Archive’s argument that its lending practices were shielded by the fair use doctrine, which permits for copyright infringement in certain circumstances, calling it “unpersuasive.”

In March 2020, the Internet Archive, a San Francisco-based nonprofit, launched a program called the National Emergency Library, or NEL. Library closures caused by the pandemic had left students, researchers, and readers unable to access millions of books, and the Internet Archive has said it was responding to calls from regular people and other librarians to help those at home get access to the books they needed.

MBFC
Archive

top 13 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] grue@lemmy.world 83 points 2 months ago

The Internet Archive needs to flee the US before the copyright cartel can destroy it completely and usher in an Internet dark age.

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 41 points 2 months ago

[–] SzethFriendOfNimi@lemmy.world 21 points 2 months ago

I love the internet archive but it’s been an uphill battle all along since it seems they really didn’t have a lot of legal protection.

Here’s a four year old video by Lawful Masses (a copyright lawyer) on the origination of the case and how the law applies.

https://youtu.be/NlznlF3AMio

[–] N0x0n@lemmy.ml 13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Alot of bad things happening these months... Nintendo, youtube, streaming sites, zlibrary, manifestV3, EU laws on cryptography to protect "the children"...

Dark days ahead? :/

[–] ElectricTrombone@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

What's happening to zlib?

[–] cadekat@pawb.social 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Maybe confused with xz: https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-3094 ?

[–] N0x0n@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago

Naaah I was talking about zlibrary (free ebooks and research paper library) getting targeted by the governement because free knowldge is illegal !

[–] ElectricTrombone@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

I guess so. I was thinking of zlib the software license...

[–] M500@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago

I’m not sure, but I recently saw they have some new domain names.

[–] FrickAndMortar@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

https://mander.xyz/comment/13282265

[+] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works -7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

This is the obviously correct decision, and no other decision was realistically possible. The only difference between what the Internet Archive was doing and what any other piracy webpage does is that the Internet Archive was claiming to do it for a good cause. What were they thinking?

[–] andrew0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If I am not mistaken, the difference was that the Internet Archive was distributing books with a DRM that would make the PDF unusable after a certain time. You could relate it to how a physical library offers books for a limited time, for free. Now, of course, one could bypass the DRM or copy the contents differently, but so can another person photocopy a book they borrowed physically. Meanwhile, other physical libraries are allowed to distribute e-books, but I'm not sure if that's made possible due to licensing fees.

I'm not saying that they approached this well, especially given the copyright laws in the US, but it was indeed a good thing for the normal person at the time. Too bad that the judicial system in the US is biased towards leeching companies. I really can't wait to see the AI vs publishers fight, though. Let's see who has deeper pockets and better plants in the courts :D

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

According to this article:

The NEL was an offshoot of an ongoing digital lending project called the Open Library, in which the Internet Archive scans physical copies of library books and lets people check out the digital copies as though they’re regular reading material instead of ebooks. The Open Library lent the books to one person at a time—but the NEL removed this ratio rule, instead letting large numbers of people borrow each scanned book at once.

It sounds like what you're describing is what they were doing before they did the thing for which they got sued.

As for AI, I think that in general using a copyrighted work to train an AI is a transformative use and therefore that it is permitted by law. Specific instances in which an AI outputs copyrighted text without any transformative modifications may still be copyright infringement They may also be fair use, in the way that copying a short excerpt from a longer document is fair use. I'm not a lawyer.

Anyway, if the courts rule against the AI companies, the enforcement of such a ruling would be disastrous for the ability for American companies to compete with international rivals who will still freely use the training data that American companies would no longer have access to. A law would be (or at least should be) passed to prevent that, although the tech companies might end up paying some nominal fee.