133
Internet Archive Loses Landmark E-Book Lending Copyright Appeal Against Publishers.
(torrentfreak.com)
A sad day for pro-preservation advocates
this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2024
133 points (100.0% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54781 readers
408 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The schools are in shambles and books are for the monied elite. Time to donate to your favorite archive site. A buck here, five there can make a difference.
Also, buy physical media. You don't own digital movies without the file; you're just given access to them.
who needs archives when you have bazinga startups and record shareholder profits
In regards to how precedent can fuck over future decisions, could this now cause issues for libraries in the future?
Unlikely.
The in-house scanning service at the Internet Archive (IA) differs from the licensing agreements entered into by other libraries. These agreements see libraries license ‘official’ e-book versions from publishers, who charge for every book that’s lent out to patrons.
Fair enough. Thanks for the clarity.
These agreements see libraries license ‘official’ e-book versions from publishers, who charge for every book that’s lent out to patrons.
So it's not "unlikely" that it will fuck over libraries. It's already happened.
Who would win?
- A website offering a public service for the benefit of humanity.
- Capitalists violently controlling imaginary "property" to the detriment of humanity.
I think we all know the answer.
I saw a comment expressing this ruling is only applicable to e-books where there already exists an e-book from the publisher, and that it won't affect media preservation or books that have been scanned (e.g., old textbooks) and that do not have an e-book. Is this true? If so, it's not all bad.
I didn't see anything in the ruling that would restrict it in that way, but i would be happy to be wrong there.
You are correct: the ruling simply affirms the plaintiff's claim against IA.
Any out-of-copyright and non-copyright items, as well as items with permissive terms (e.g., Creative Commons licenses) will still be available on IA. Previously, the plaintiff Hachette offered a deal that IA rejected, in which IA would be allowed to make digital copies of Hachette texts that are either out-of-print titles, or titles for which digital copies have never been produced.
Right now, it's up to Hachette and the other publishers affected in the case whether that offer is still available.
edited: hyphens.