It looks like the internet archive is needed assistance, I just heard about this today and figured lemmy could help spread this message around

  • lemmyvore@feddit.nlEnglish
    83·
    6 months ago

    And everyone that wants unbiased context should read the wikipedia page:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hachette_v._Internet_Archive

    The judgment basically completely ignored IA’s arguments towards fair use. EFF filed an amicus brief that explains how baseless the judgment was. Assuming the entire US court system isn’t in the corporate pocket yet they will win this on appeal.

    It’s ridiculous to assume that an organization whose main purpose is data archival would knowingly and blatantly ignore copyright law. IA didn’t ignore it, they did they homework and saw that their use qualified as fair use. Then they met a judge who doesn’t give a shit about that. Nobody can prepare for that in advance.

    • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
      12·
      6 months ago

      Their argument towards fair use wasn’t ignored. It was inapplicable.

      It’s ridiculous to assume that an organization whose main purpose is data archival would knowingly and blatantly ignore copyright law

      Except that’s exactly what they did. They knowingly and blatantly violated copyright law. They had a system in place to ensure fair use compliance. They intentionally disabled that system, in violation of fair use, to allow unlimited free downloads of the books they had archived.

      IA’s entire argument was basically “but we’re a library” and totally missed the part where even public libraries need to comply with copyright law. Even with ebooks, they can’t simply distribute an unlimited number of copies; They have licensing agreements in place, for a specific number of specific ebooks to be checked out at any one time. And they have to use time-locked DRM to ensure compliance, by automatically revoking users’ reading ability when their check-out time is up. IA did precisely none of that.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      11·
      6 months ago

      In this case, they absolutely did. They had a CDL in place specifically to comply with copyright law, and they willfully and intentionally disabled it.

      The publishers also had arrangements with local libraries to expand their ebook selections. Most libraries have ebook and audiobook deals worked out with the publishers, and those were expanded during the lockdowns. Many of the partner libraries preferred those systems to the CDL because they served their citizens directly. A small town in Nebraska didn’t have to worry about having a wait list of 3000 people ahead of the local citizen whose taxes had actually bought the license the Internet Archive wanted to borrow.

      The Internet Archive held a press conference right before the ruling comparing the National Emergency Library to winter-library lands, but that’s simply not accurate. The CDL they had in place before and after was inter-library loaning. The CDL was like setting up printing presses in the library and copying books for free and handing them out to anyone.

      Under the existing CDL, they could have verified that partner libraries had stopped lending their phycical copies of the books and made more copies of the ebooks available for checkout instead of just making it unlimited and they’d have legally been fine, but they did not, and the publishers had every right to sue.

      The publishes also waited until June to file suit: well-after most places had been re-opened for weeks.

      IA does important work, but they absolutely broke the law here, and since they did it by intentionally removing the systems designed to ensure legitimate archival status and fair-use of copywritten works, they have pretty much zero defense. It wasn’t a mistake or an oversight. And after reopening they kept doing it for weeks until they were sued and were able to magically restore the legal system the same day the lawsuit was filed.

      • lemmyvore@feddit.nlEnglish
        14·
        6 months ago

        You’re using the publisher’s arguments in your comment. If anybody’s interested, here’s the IA’s counter-argument. It boils down to the fact publishers are challenging practices that used to be considered fair use… just because they can.

        This decision has wide-reaching implications that will affect all libraries, not just the IA.

        Ultimately we’ll just have to see what the appeal decision will be.

        • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
          4·
          6 months ago

          Their counter-argument isn’t a legal argument. They’re saying they did it because they think the publishers aren’t being fair.

          And they’re talking mostly about format-conversion, which isn’t the problem here.

          You can absolutely make format conversions to digital for archival purposes. What you cannot do is them make a bunch of copies and give them away for free simultaneous use. That is not fair use. That’s 100% piracy.

          The CDL was built specifically to ensure that only one digital copy was on loan for each owned copy of the material because the IA absolutely knew that was the law.

        • Ferk@lemmy.ml
          3·
          6 months ago

          In that counter argument they are essentially admitting that 99% of their content was distributed without the copyright holder’s consent.

          In the CDL lawsuit, they have admitted that of the millions of books we have digitized, they themselves have only made about 33,000 available to libraries; only about 1% of what we have done, and only under restrictive and expensive license agreements. This is, they claim, the essence of their copyright rights: the ability to restrict access to information as they see fit, to further their theoretical economic interests, without regard to libraries traditional functions and the greater public good.

          Was it fair use in the past to redistribute reprints/format-conversions of works without the copyright holders consent?

          I agree that copyright law sucks… but that’s why it needs to change so it actually serves “the greater public good”. The judiciary system is not the right place to advocate for that (they don’t make the law, just interpret it), so I don’t really think there’s much hope in them winning this. Sadly.