30 votes

Four major US publishers sue Internet Archive for copyright infringement, alleging that it has illegally offered more than a million scanned works to the public

23 comments

  1. [3]
    Deimos
    Link
    Internet Archive's (very short) statement in response: https://blog.archive.org/2020/06/01/four-commercial-publishers-filed-a-complaint-about-the-internet-archives-lending-of-digitized-books/
    9 votes
    1. [2]
      Wes
      Link Parent
      Not a very good response... I was hoping they'd have some legal teeth to respond with. It seems they're just shaming them, and hoping the attackers go away. The Internet Archive has always been in...

      Not a very good response... I was hoping they'd have some legal teeth to respond with. It seems they're just shaming them, and hoping the attackers go away.

      The Internet Archive has always been in a strange place when it comes to copyright. They host a lot of content that's still protected, and have built special viewers for some formats (eg. rom games). Until now I assumed they had some special protections in place as an archival service. Maybe that's not the case though.

      21 votes
      1. DonkeySlingshot
        Link Parent
        They're considered a library so they're allowed to share copyrighted content

        They're considered a library so they're allowed to share copyrighted content

        1 vote
  2. Deimos
    Link
    Ars Technica contacted a couple of copyright experts about the case. They seem to think that the publishers' case is fairly strong, and that Internet Archive will probably need to try to frame it...

    Ars Technica contacted a couple of copyright experts about the case.

    They seem to think that the publishers' case is fairly strong, and that Internet Archive will probably need to try to frame it as fair use, possibly making a case that the coronavirus has created a unique enough situation to permit something that normally wouldn't be covered. Neither of them could think of any specific precedent to allow this though, and there are potentially very high damages if Internet Archive loses.

    8 votes
  3. [13]
    Sand
    Link
    They will succeed. Because for some reason (greed) it's illegal to do what a normal library does, online.

    They will succeed. Because for some reason (greed) it's illegal to do what a normal library does, online.

    4 votes
    1. [4]
      skybrian
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      Normal libraries do loan out eBooks. They use systems built on DRM that keep track of how many copies they have and how many they lend out. I guess they do, normally?

      Normal libraries do loan out eBooks. They use systems built on DRM that keep track of how many copies they have and how many they lend out. The Internet Archive doesn't do it that way. I guess they do, normally?

      10 votes
      1. [2]
        Greg
        Link Parent
        Publishers also charge the library five to ten times as much for digital copies compared to paper ones, and then go on to render them unusable after a relatively limited period. They are in no way...

        Publishers also charge the library five to ten times as much for digital copies compared to paper ones, and then go on to render them unusable after a relatively limited period. They are in no way acting in good faith - they're using the DRM for control and profiteering, not just as a means of maintaining the status quo.

        There's a simple and fair option that I've mentioned before: charge the libraries a fee per lend, and set that fee based on the hard copy price and its expected lifespan. Until we see that happening, I'll maintain a healthy skepticism of the publishers' side of this argument.

        As for the Internet Archive, my understanding is that until very recently they did still limit the copies in circulation exactly like any other library's ebook program. The difference is that they acquired their copies in physical form and digitised them, rather than specifically licensing digital copies. The difficulty comes in the fact that they then removed this limit during the COVID crisis, to allow wider access. Legally dubious, but as far as I'm concerned entirely moral.

        21 votes
        1. Tardigrade
          Link Parent
          I think that's exactly what the arguament boils down to sadly. We can both agree that it's a great thing to share information when libraries are closed or even normally but when it comes down to...

          Legally dubious, but as far as I'm concerned entirely moral.

          I think that's exactly what the arguament boils down to sadly. We can both agree that it's a great thing to share information when libraries are closed or even normally but when it comes down to copyright they're not follow the law and as such will probably lose anything in court if lack public outcry means it gets that far.

          5 votes
      2. tlalexander
        Link Parent
        The internet archive does loan out limited copies of their books using DRM normally. They use an adobe DRM format. But during the pandemic they removed loan limits so they suddenly started loaning...

        The internet archive does loan out limited copies of their books using DRM normally. They use an adobe DRM format. But during the pandemic they removed loan limits so they suddenly started loaning out unlimited numbers of books. They are however still protected by DRM.

        5 votes
    2. [5]
      zptc
      Link Parent
      Scanning books (presumably without paying for them at any point) and distributing unlimited copies is what normal libraries do?

      Scanning books (presumably without paying for them at any point) and distributing unlimited copies is what normal libraries do?

      5 votes
      1. [4]
        Overzeetop
        Link Parent
        Cataloging and storing written materials and allowing anyone who asks to view them is exactly what libraries do. You have conflated viewing with copying. Anything else is just pedantic discussion...

        Cataloging and storing written materials and allowing anyone who asks to view them is exactly what libraries do.

        You have conflated viewing with copying. Anything else is just pedantic discussion regarding "distribution" and "reproduction" and the legal vs practical aspects of what makes the entire internet possible.

        2 votes
        1. [3]
          zptc
          Link Parent
          Libraries purchase materials and allow limited viewership. According to the allegation, IA did neither of those things. I'm not saying anything about it was truly "right" or "wrong," but I'm not...

          Libraries purchase materials and allow limited viewership. According to the allegation, IA did neither of those things. I'm not saying anything about it was truly "right" or "wrong," but I'm not conflating anything. As pointed out above, libraries do have systems for e-books in place, and again IA did not do what a normal library does.

          2 votes
          1. [2]
            Deimos
            Link Parent
            I linked it separately below, but their follow-up post after the original announcement includes: The lawsuit is in response to them temporarily removing the "one reader at a time" restriction.

            I linked it separately below, but their follow-up post after the original announcement includes:

            One of the statements suggests you’ve acquired your books illegally. Is that true?

            No. The books in the National Emergency Library have been acquired through purchase or donation, just like a traditional library. The Internet Archive preserves and digitizes the books it owns and makes those scans available for users to borrow online, normally one at a time. That borrowing threshold has been suspended through June 30, 2020, or the end of the US national emergency.

            What is the legal basis for Internet Archive’s digital lending during normal times?

            The concept and practice of controlled digital lending (CDL) has been around for about a decade. It is a lend-like-print system where the library loans out a digital version of a book it owns to one reader at a time, using the same technical protections that publishers use to prevent further redistribution. The legal doctrine underlying this system is fair use, as explained in the Position Statement on Controlled Digital Lending.

            The lawsuit is in response to them temporarily removing the "one reader at a time" restriction.

            2 votes
            1. imperialismus
              Link Parent
              So it's not that what they're doing normally was illegal and just escaped notice, but, allegedly, their current practice breaks the law. I actually wasn't aware you could lend contemporary books...

              So it's not that what they're doing normally was illegal and just escaped notice, but, allegedly, their current practice breaks the law.

              I actually wasn't aware you could lend contemporary books from the Internet Archive. I thought they only archived websites and books that were in the public domain.

              Anyone got any recommendations for good contemporary books that are available there?

              3 votes
    3. [3]
      Omnicrola
      Link Parent
      I don't think that argument holds. If a library keeps a book and lends it, someone still had to pay for the book. Libraries have been lending physical books for centuries and folks generally seem...

      I don't think that argument holds. If a library keeps a book and lends it, someone still had to pay for the book. Libraries have been lending physical books for centuries and folks generally seem pretty ok with that.

      The digital age changes the dynamic significantly. If someone wants to read something, and it exists online, chances are they will Google it and take the least inconvenient option (read: the free one). The author likely gets little or no compensation.

      I think the Internet Archive is an invaluable service, but if someone doesn't want to release their work for free, they have the right to enforce their copyright.

      unless you're Disney, fuck Disney

      4 votes
      1. [2]
        Sand
        Link Parent
        The person who uploaded the book to the Internet Archive also had to pay for the book. Borrowing physical books is also free. And I don't think an author receives compensation when that happens,...

        If a library keeps a book and lends it, someone still had to pay for the book.

        The person who uploaded the book to the Internet Archive also had to pay for the book.

        If someone wants to read something, and it exists online, chances are they will Google it and take the least inconvenient option (read: the free one). The author likely gets little or no compensation.

        Borrowing physical books is also free. And I don't think an author receives compensation when that happens, but I may be wrong.

        unless you're Disney, fuck Disney

        Disney isn't any worse than any other big corporation. Or are you being sarcastic?

        3 votes
        1. Omnicrola
          Link Parent
          Fair point. AFAIK they are not, same reason they don't get royalties from second-hand bookstores I imagine. I like @Greg's post further up with the idea of using digital tools to charge per lend,...

          The person who uploaded the book to the Internet Archive also had to pay for the book.

          Fair point.

          Borrowing physical books is also free. And I don't think an author receives compensation when that happens, but I may be wrong.

          AFAIK they are not, same reason they don't get royalties from second-hand bookstores I imagine. I like @Greg's post further up with the idea of using digital tools to charge per lend, which allows for any amount of simultaneous lends and other things.

          Disney isn't any worse than any other big corporation. Or are you being sarcastic?

          Not sarcastic, just picking on Disney in particular because they are almost single-handedly responsible for getting changes made to copyright law that directly benefit their bottom line by preventing their most profitable works from passing into the public domain.

          4 votes
  4. [2]
    Pistos
    Link
    Perhaps I am just terribly ignorant and naive about these matters, but, given that the IA knowingly took copyrighted works and distributed them, I can't help but ask: What did they expect [to happen]?

    Perhaps I am just terribly ignorant and naive about these matters, but, given that the IA knowingly took copyrighted works and distributed them, I can't help but ask: What did they expect [to happen]?

    4 votes
    1. Deimos
      Link Parent
      The Internet Archive is recognized as a library and believe they have the right to digitally "loan" books like this. There's a fair amount of information in this post on their blog: Internet...

      The Internet Archive is recognized as a library and believe they have the right to digitally "loan" books like this. There's a fair amount of information in this post on their blog: Internet Archive responds: Why we released the National Emergency Library

      Some more on their help site as well: National Emergency Library FAQs

      9 votes
  5. MetArtScroll
    Link
    The formal problem here, as many have already noted, is whether removing the “one loan per copy” restriction during an emergency is fair use. However, IMHO this is yet another manifestation of...

    The formal problem here, as many have already noted, is whether removing the “one loan per copy” restriction during an emergency is fair use.

    However, IMHO this is yet another manifestation of ridiculously long copyright terms (and there are attempts to use the pandemic as a leverage to make copyright eternal).

    It would be much less logical to use this fair use reasoning were it not for the fact that anything published in 1925 or later is still copyrighted in the US.

    2 votes
  6. [4]
    Comment removed by site admin
    Link
    1. [4]
      Comment removed by site admin
      Link Parent
      1. [4]
        Comment removed by site admin
        Link Parent
        1. [4]
          Comment removed by site admin
          Link Parent
          1. [4]
            Comment removed by site admin
            Link Parent
            1. [4]
              Comment removed by site admin
              Link Parent
              1. [4]
                Comment removed by site admin
                Link Parent
                1. [3]
                  Deimos
                  (edited )
                  Link Parent
                  People have been requesting that I stop allowing these ideological fights all over the place where people are just talking past each other with no intention of actually trying to understand what...

                  People have been requesting that I stop allowing these ideological fights all over the place where people are just talking past each other with no intention of actually trying to understand what each other are saying. I wasn't trying to shame you, I was trying to do that and show that I'm doing it, because just silently removing things without any public comment doesn't help other people understand what kinds of behavior are inappropriate or why moderation is happening.

                  But I'll just wipe the whole thing out then. Don't reply again, and nobody will even know which user is the one who had their comments removed here.

                  13 votes
                  1. [2]
                    vektor
                    Link Parent
                    OT: Do you have a regular "remove" button on everyone's comments to do this? Because this comment chain has two comments removed by author, which I'd reckon are yours. Interesting then how the...

                    OT:

                    Do you have a regular "remove" button on everyone's comments to do this? Because this comment chain has two comments removed by author, which I'd reckon are yours. Interesting then how the deletion reason reads as author if it coincidentally also is site admin.

                    2 votes
                    1. Deimos
                      Link Parent
                      They're separate functions. I have "Remove" on everyone's comments (including my own) and "Delete" only on my own. I deleted my own comments instead of removing them, but maybe should have just...

                      They're separate functions. I have "Remove" on everyone's comments (including my own) and "Delete" only on my own. I deleted my own comments instead of removing them, but maybe should have just removed everything since it's a little weird to have the mix like that.

                      3 votes