Internet Archive to Appeal 'Chilling' Federal Ruling Against Digital Books

1
Internet Archive vowed to appeal after a U.S. district court judge on Friday sided with four major publishers who sued the nonprofit for copyright infringement.

Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, Internet Archives operated a controlled digital lending system, allowing users to digitally check out scanned copies of purchased or donated books on a one-to-one basis. As the public health crises forced school and library closures, the nonprofit launched the National Emergency Library, making 1.4 million digital books available without waitlists.

Hachette, HarperCollins, John Wiley & Sons, and Penguin Random House sued Internet Archive over its lending policies in June 2020. Judge John G. Koeltl of the Southern District of New York on Friday found in Hachette v. Internet Archive that the nonprofit "creates derivative e-books that, when lent to the public, compete with those authorized by the publishers."

A future in which libraries are just a shell for Big Tech's licensing software and Big Media's most popular titles would be awful—but that's where we're headed if this decision stands.
Koeltl's ruling came just two days after the American Library Association released a report revealing that in 2022, a record-breaking 2,571 titles were challenged by pro-censorship groups pushing book bans, a 38% increase from the previous year.

Meanwhile, Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday passed the so-called Parents Bill of Rights Act, which education advocates and progressive lawmakers argue is intended to ban books and further ostracize marginalized communities.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/inter ... -libraries

Book burning can happen here just like it did in Germany 1933.
Image
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: Internet Archive to Appeal 'Chilling' Federal Ruling Against Digital Books

3
CDFingers wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 11:57 am Buy 'em in print. Fuck big tech.

CDFingers
Yep, buy it once and you can read it as many times as you want. Also public libraries still exist and you can reserve books online.

Internet Archives does movies as well. I suspect that will be curtailed eventually too.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Internet Archive to Appeal 'Chilling' Federal Ruling Against Digital Books

5
highdesert wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 12:59 pm It's a copyright infringement case, just because the Internet Archive owns one copy of a book, doesn't give them the right to pass digital copies along to others. This is US law, you could probably procure a copy from a foreign country without strict copyright laws.
Hard copies and actual libraries are my go to or the bookstore. LoL.

Still a public library buys or gets books and loans them out. The concept isn’t that different. I’d have more sympathy for their copyright case if public libraries or in this case Internet Archives was charging for the reading. Are they? Sharing without profit should be allowable.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Internet Archive to Appeal 'Chilling' Federal Ruling Against Digital Books

6
Consider that public libraries are not free. They are paid for by tax dollars collected by the government entities that subsidize them. So even if I don’t use the library I still have to pay my share for it.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: Internet Archive to Appeal 'Chilling' Federal Ruling Against Digital Books

7
TrueTexan wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 2:54 pm Consider that public libraries are not free. They are paid for by tax dollars collected by the government entities that subsidize them. So even if I don’t use the library I still have to pay my share for it.
Sure, but that’s true with anything for the public good. The institution is not making a profit off of loaning you a book or movie. It’s a public owned institution giving free access to everyone. Are you objecting to publicly owned institutions? We all pay for services we don’t use. How do you feel about public hospitals, would it be so bad to be able to walk in and get aid without someone making a dollar? Walk in and out without needing to pay just showing perhaps a medical card or a social security ID. Pick and choose, but if we live collectively we need to decide which services we want given, health care, education and libraries or something else. So even though public funding pays for the services regardless of my personal use it is for the common good. The key is access and if the copyright is used to deny access that’s wrong. Consider that to some extent copyrighted material is a theft of commonly given resources. Perhaps copyrights shouldn’t exist at all.
Last edited by sikacz on Mon Mar 27, 2023 4:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Internet Archive to Appeal 'Chilling' Federal Ruling Against Digital Books

8
sikacz wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 12:03 pm
CDFingers wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 11:57 am Buy 'em in print. Fuck big tech.

CDFingers
Yep, buy it once and you can read it as many times as you want. Also public libraries still exist and you can reserve books online.

Internet Archives does movies as well. I suspect that will be curtailed eventually too.
Paper's not nearly so searchable, though. More's the pity. That's one function I really like, the "find" this word function.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: Internet Archive to Appeal 'Chilling' Federal Ruling Against Digital Books

9
sikacz wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 4:50 pm
TrueTexan wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 2:54 pm Consider that public libraries are not free. They are paid for by tax dollars collected by the government entities that subsidize them. So even if I don’t use the library I still have to pay my share for it.
Sure, but that’s true with anything for the public good. The institution is not making a profit off of loaning you a book or movie. It’s a public owned institution giving free access to everyone. Are you objecting to publicly owned institutions? We all pay for services we don’t use. How do you feel about public hospitals, would it be so bad to be able to walk in and get aid without someone making a dollar? Walk in and out without needing to pay just showing perhaps a medical card or a social security ID. Pick and choose, but if we live collectively we need to decide which services we want given, health care, education and libraries or something else. So even though public funding pays for the services regardless of my personal use it is for the common good. The key is access and if the copyright is used to deny access that’s wrong. Consider that to some extent copyrighted material is a theft of commonly given resources. Perhaps copyrights shouldn’t exist at all.
Most public hospitals still bill patients, just like the not for profit “charity” hospitals.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: Internet Archive to Appeal 'Chilling' Federal Ruling Against Digital Books

10
Since Internet Archive acquires the books legally, and only lends them out one electronic copy per copy of the paper book without charge, I don't see how it's functionally any different than any other library. My public library acquires books and lends them out. I believe public and research libraries lend out digital books as well.

Besides, there's LONG been a legal exception to copying music from LPs, tapes, CDs etc to make one copy for personal use. The record companies fought THAT too, and lost.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Amazon [Bot] and 3 guests