All of this sounds nice, but also ignores the details of the lost court case. When I learned more about the actual case details it really seemed like a strange hill to die on for the IA, and it was nearly inevitable they would lose. I think there was a very sensible middle ground the IA could have chosen to avoid it all while still sticking to their core mission.
I will claim that IA is an overly-sensible org because they fought this in court. That about show a healthy respect to the law, middlemen and authors to argue in the presence of a judge. For Publishers and middlemen, this is a hollow victory. Murky water.
Say for instance, I buy a book. I make a scanned copy and lend out the original. The person who borrowed the book, makes a copy and sends it back. I do this for 1 million times. I wasn't distributing copies, no one was distributing copies.
This is what we did in Uni. The class would contribute some small amount to the purchase of an original book. Then the person who bought the original with the classes money, made a copy, passing the original along. Within the week, every student had borrowed that book. And everyone had a copy. Do you see the murky water?
For a legal activist, government, or large company, the decision about whether to go to court is different than for individuals.
For an actor like that, you want to take cases that you can win to court, to establish precedent step by step. You want to settle cases you might lose out of court to avoid establishing precedent to your disadvantage. In this way, you can slowly change the interpretation of the law.
Taking this to court is seen as a mistake because it was a predictable loss and established a harsh precedent.
Internet Archive had lent books on a 1 reader for 1 physical copy basis for a long time, and the publishers didn't want to take it to court because the judge would need to weigh the rights of a person purchasing a physical good against copyright. They might no like the decision. It suited them to leave it untested.
Internet Archive chose to lend unlimited copies and pursue the matter to its conclusion in court rather than settling out of court.
Assuming Internet Archive were well advised, knew they would lose, and still chose to create this situation and go to court, you have to wonder why.
Are they trying to create an unacceptable legal precedent so that they can get the law changed? Some other reason I am not seeing?
Copying some parts of the book for educational purposes is allowed within fair use. Copying entire works isn't considered fair use.
A teacher buys a book which is a collection of worksheets. The teacher photocopies some worksheets out of the book to use in a non-profit educational environment. This is entirely fair use.
A teacher buys a copy of a textbook, photocopies the entire textbook, and hands it out to the class, that is not fair use because it is the entirety of the work.
Being the entirety of not is not always relevant to fair use. Of course a judge may take amount into account, especially when arguing damages, but fair use is a guideline to a judge not a set of well-defined rules (though collection societies love to print their own policies as being the rules...)
> fair use is a guideline to a judge not a set of well-defined rules
There are four factors of fair use. Factor three is the amount or substantiality is being copied. You're somewhat right there isn't an entirely objective standard to measure things, but there isn't exactly an objective measure to creativity.
You can't put something on a scale and get units of creativity a work has. You can't get a graduated stick and measure the creativity of a work.
If we're going to stretch the meaning of "stealing" to include situations where no one is being deprived of their property we might just as easily say that text book publishers have been "stealing" from the pockets of students for decades with the insane prices they charge.
The creators put in labour with the intention that their efforts would be recouped in the form of remuneration. You stole their labour simply because you could in do it in a way that is not easily visible/detectable. Theft of labour is still theft to me, be it Amazon or parasites on creative works that are the results of the cumulations of years of an individuals learning and mental effort to create something. There is a reason copyright was created. We wanted a mechanism where these people could be rewarded for their labour because having professional fiction writers/historians/philosophers benefits society.
When a creator's labor is recuperated yet they still seek payment via copyright due to the unreasonable length of time that is assigned, does the charging for further copies beyond manufacturing costs then count as theft?
Whatever you may think of what OP's buddies were doing, there is no way to apply any reasonable meaning of the word "stealing" to it.
There is indeed plenty murky here, and it is mostly coming from you in an attempt to incorrectly use an emotionally-loaded word in order to deceive people into supporting your position.
> emotionally-loaded word in order to deceive people into supporting your position
That's an entirely colourful way of phrasing it, considering I merely just said what I thought and have experienced, nor do I think I have the capacity to deceive at such a level. That is your opinion, and I accept it.
If we are going to use ridiculous definitions of stealing, I will have to point out that private, non-personal property - anything that you don't have direct personal possession and control over - is theft.
It's copyright infringement. It's not theft. Theft deprives an owner of use of an item.
When Bob puts in labour in order to make financial gain, and Tom takes the fruit of Bob's labour without paying what Bob has set the work of his labour as being worth.
Adding a parameter X to your definition expands it as follows:
> When Bob invests labor into X to generate financial gain, and Tom utilizes the results of Bob's labor on X without compensating Bob at his requested rate.
However, this definition becomes problematic for many values of X. Consider cases such as:
* Fashion styles
* Business models or store layouts
* Factory or house designs
* Cake decorating techniques
* Cooking methods
* Agricultural practices
In these examples and many others, the concept of "owning" the fruits of one's labor becomes murky. *Intellectual property laws were originally conceived to benefit society as a whole, not just individuals.* As our understanding of innovation and creativity evolves, we may find that some communities flourish better with more flexible approaches to intellectual property.
But Bob was paid. That's the point. Also most of 'intellectual' property is owned by corporations, not the creators.
If Bob prints a book and you take it without paying for it, that's stealing. If Bob prints a book and you buy it from Bob and you make copies of it and give it to your friends, that isn't stealing. And it shouldn't be classified as stealing, morally or legally.
The only reason it is considered illegal is because greedy corporate interests decided to make it so. Historically, people bought books and copied it and spread it around. That was the norm until fairly recently.
'Intellectual property' is theft. It is a fiction invented by the parasite class. Just think about it.
Bob's pay rate was agreed upon based on getting X number of sales, not one book.
You are promoting the parasiting off Bobs labor. You can try to justify it, but Bob worked expecting to get paid from those transactions, and they were taken away away because it was technologically easy to do. Bob/society expected payment to occur.
This is just moral pedantry. The law doesn't really mean anything if its not enforceable. Students pirate books all the time and face no legal consequences. Meanwhile, the good faith actors are punished with completely unreasonable book costs. At a certain point, you should point your finger towards an unfair system that leads to bad incentives, not students simply trying to learn.
The free flow of information is slowly being eroded by rights holders. If people don't find a way to stop being influenced by narratives that really only service this establishment, we will find ourselves, renting and not owning works of art. When rights to own and enjoy a creation on your terms gets taken away from you, the control over your life does as well.
As has been mentioned elsewhere, losing an appeal at this level sets precedent that does damage to the free flow of information. The best thing that the IA could have done to advance freedom would have been to bail as soon as it was apparent they had no chance to win (which was before the lawsuit was even filed).
That's not just a narrative that serves the establishment, it's a fact of life. We don't get anywhere towards change by ignoring the reality of the present situation—we have to work within reality in order to change reality.
Maybe. But this situation points to much larger problem, in my view. That people are starting to become accustom to common people rights erosion. Rights holders should not being wielding this kind of power against the public, at the end of the day they are still accountable to the public good, end of story.
