29 ms·

Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive

397 points by tingletech 6y ago

MaxBarraclough 6y ago
I was very surprised to see that Archive.org also host collections of copyrighted ROMs.
dntbnmpls 6y ago
So what? If you offered a reason for why this particular article was better, then your comment would have added value. Otherwise it seems like a poorly paid social media worker at the nytimes spamming here.
- tingletech 6y ago
  If I were an agent for the NYT, why would I have submitted the press release vs. simply submitting the NYT article? Is there some SEO trick there? I saw the NYT piece after I posted the press release. A press release from a plaintiff announcing a lawsuit is, by its nature, one sided. The NYT coverage is more balanced, including Brewster's response for example. Based on how quick the press release jumped to the front page, I figured folks would be interested in the broader coverage. Rather than making another submission, I added a note to this submission. I thought the difference between a press release and news article was well known and did not need stating. I guess I assumed a level of information literacy that was not present in all readers, and should have said "and here is some popular reporting that gives a broader perspective than the press release I just posted above". Based on the upvotes of my additional comment, I can only assume it added value for some readers.
- dang 6y ago
  NYT is a perfectly legitimate source for HN and the commenter was being helpful by offering an alternate link. Please don't gum up the threads with off-topic kvetching about sites you dislike. Also, can you please not be a jerk in comments here? We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23381481 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23381481.
- dang 6y ago
  .
drallison 6y ago
Now would be a good time to donate funds to the Internet Archive. While you visit to give them money, check out the awesome collection. http://archive.org/donate http://archive.org/donate It is also a good time to reflect upon the very idea of intellectual property. In this age, 15th century ideas about how to protect printers may not be ideal in the 21st century. Patents and copyright are constitutionally mandated: [The Congress shall have power] “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” It is not clear that our current laws are doing the job.
luord 6y ago
An organization dedicated to preserving the knowledge of mankind or... Greedy luddites attempting to use archaic laws to try to postpone the inevitable demise of their absurd business model. This is quite the dilemma.
roryokane 6y ago
It was surprisingly difficult to find links to these supposedly-infringing libraries run by the Internet Archive. Here they are: https://archive.org/details/nationalemergencylibrary https://archive.org/details/nationalemergencylibrary https://openlibrary.org/ https://openlibrary.org/
marvindanig 6y ago
A gentle reminder that these are the same publishers who also advocate that harvested tree pulp industry does not impact the environment. As evil as they come. ;-)
- falcolas 6y ago
  They... don't impact the environment. The trees they use were planted for the sole purpose of being harvested. And new trees are planted for every tree that's harvested. ~~If anything, they're a net positive for the environment, since they're sequestering carbon into books.~~ EDIT: I'll acquiesce that they may not be a net positive, since there are carbon costs associated with the entire process. But, using purpose-grown trees is hard to consider as a net negative. And, if we're talking about the entire process, e-books are not carbon-zero products either.
  - sjnu 6y ago
    Yep. Producing the book is free.
    - simias 6y ago
      If you have something to say then just say it, these passive aggressive quips don't really provide anything of value to the discussion.
  - marvindanig 6y ago
    > they're a net positive for the environment, since they're sequestering carbon into books. You mean like 'clean coal?' Got it. And no thank you, that's not how environment math or nature works. I hope better sense will prevail eventually and you'll come around to accepting the evils under all that jargon. Edit: 'Carbon zero' is probably the best spot to be on, but isn't an achievable goal no matter what path you take. However, the net carbon impact with a digital circulation is less than 0.0003% of what a dead tree circulation would achieve nationwide in all US with a bestseller.
  - smooth_remmy 6y ago
williesleg 6y ago
Of course, they want to control their own content so they can make it disappear when they need.
throwanem 6y ago
Even the press release doesn't do a good job supporting the infringement claim. They just baldly state IA isn't a real library and then hurry back to reiterate their infringement claims and talk about why infringement is bad, without ever actually explaining how IA's actions qualify as infringement. Looks like palming a card, to me.
- kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
  Making unauthorized copies of copyrighted material is infringement. That is why you weren't allowed to photocopy entire books before electronic distribution was viable. IA isn't on solid ground here.
  - adventured 6y ago
    Nobody in this thread is discussing IA's massive violation of privacy and the way it entirely ignores GDPR as well. They won't survive any serious privacy protections in the US, it'll destroy their archive top to bottom, as they have no idea what's in it and it opens them up to unlimited liability for privacy violations. First their content knowingly violates copyright in an across the board way (they have no permission to copy and republish most of their content), second it's loaded with privacy violations. There's no scenario where IA continues to exist as-is in the future. They intentionally make it very difficult to remove content from their archive, even if it contains content that violates your privacy. IA is one of the greatest privacy violators in the tech space. You won't see that discussed very often, the fans of IA go out of their way to dodge that conversation.
    - ghaff 6y ago
      I'm not sure where you're coming from on privacy. Everything there was public at some point. But, yes, I can't in general call myself a library, scrape any web content I want, and put in on a web site. A lot of people seem to think IA has some special exemption to do so because they're a library (by some definitions) and are, in general, a valuable resource. But really they do it by being a non-profit, voluntarily respecting robots.txt (even retroactively), and generally taking stuff down when asked.
mrgalaxy 6y ago
It seems like Internet Archive's sites are just the digital versions of a normal library. Is there something I'm missing here? Are these publishers going to go after all libraries? Or is this more about the content being digital?
- veonik 6y ago
  The Internet Archive recently started "The Emergency Library" or something to that effect where they are now lending out unlimited books-- not limiting what and how much they lend out based on what they physically own as they did previously.
  - mrgalaxy 6y ago
    Okay that seems like pretty brazen copyright infringement then. That's crazy! Maybe they hope to disrupt the publishing industry, but really just sounds like a way to get sued.
    - guidoism 6y ago
      The books are still DRMd so it's not as crazy as one might expect.
    - sp332 6y ago
      There's an opt-out. And they're partnering with a bunch of other libraries that are closed due to the pandemic so maybe they'll get to count all of those copies as well. They also excluded all books published recently. So I doubt any author or publisher will be able to show significant damages in court.
      - jawns 6y ago
        > They also excluded all books published recently. One of my books was published in 2014 and is on the list. > There's an opt-out. Because authors can opt out of having their books pirated, that makes it OK? How are authors notified about the existence of the opt-out? Oh, they're not? Hmm.
EvanAnderson 6y ago
Why can't the publishing industry just hurry up and die? They provide fewer and fewer valuable services as the marginal cost of content distribution approaches zero and they just seem more like rent seekers.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  Luckily, this press release documents which publishers you shouldn't buy books from going forward. > Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, John Wiley & Sons and Penguin Random House
  - hedora 6y ago
    Here is a full list of members. If you have influence over them (springer, yale, acs, harvard press, university of california, Illinois, MOMA, etc), it would be reasonable to pressure them to withdraw their membership from the Association of American Publishers The list is here, but it takes multiple seconds to render each of the many pages: https://publishers.org/who-we-are/our-members/ https://publishers.org/who-we-are/our-members/ 1517 Media Academic Innovations Albert Whitman & Company American Anthropological Association (AAA) American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) American Chemical Society (ACS) American Dental Association Publishing (ADA) American Diabetes Association American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) American Medical Association (AMA) American Physical Society (APS) American Physiological Society, The (APS) American Psychological Association (APA) American Reading Company American School for Classical Studies at Athens (ASCSA) American Society for Indexing (ASI) American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) American Thoracic Society (ATS) American University in Cairo Press Applied Educational Systems Aquila Polonica (U.S.) LTD Bar Charts, Inc. Baylor University Press Benchmark Education Co. Berghahn Books Bernson LTD (Big Hat Press) BioZone USA Blooming Twig Books Bloomsbury USA BMJ Publishing Group Limited Bonnier Publishing USA British American Publishing Brookings Institution Press Burn House Publishing Cambridge Information Group (CIG) Cambridge University Press Catapult Caslon, Inc. Cato Institute Cengage Learning Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) Chronicle Books Cider Mill Press Book Publishers Columbia University Press City Lights Booksellers & Publishers Common Ground Research Network Crossway Davies Publishing Inc. Davis Publications Inc. Disney Publishing Worldwide Experiment, The F.A. Davis Company Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) Fordham University Press General Conference of 7th-Day Adventists Georgetown University Press Georgia McBride Media Group Getty Publications GoodKnight Books Greystone Books Ltd Group Publishing Grove/Atlantic, Inc. Hachette Book Group Hansen Publishing HarperCollins Publishers Worldwide Harrington Park Press Harvard Business Review Group Harvard University Press Hogrefe Publishing Holiday House Inc. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES) Humanix Books Independent Institute, The INFORMS International Monetary Fund (IMF) InterVarsity Press John Hunt Publishing John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Johns Hopkins University Press The Journal of American Academy of Business (JAABC) Judson Press Kappa Delta Pi Kodansha USA Libros Publishing Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc Macmillan Massachusetts Medical Society Materials Research Forum McGraw Hill Education MedMaster Inc Melville House Michigan State University Press Moody Publishers Morgan & Claypool Publishers Morton Publishing Company Museum of Modern Art , The (MOMA) National Academies Press Naval Institute Press New World Library NY Media Works, LLC NYU Press Oak Knoll Press Okapi Educational Publishing, Inc. Oncology Nursing Society Optical Society of America (OSA) Oxford University Press Penguin Random House Pennsylvania State University Press Princeton University Press Pushkin Press Quirk Books RELX Group Riverdale Avenue Books Rosen Publishing Group SAGE Publications Scholastic Testing Service, Inc Scholastic, Inc. Simon & Schuster Social Studies School Service Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM) Springer Publishing Company Stanford University Press Story Plant, The Tanglewood Publishing, Inc. Taylor and Francis Group Teachers College Press Teacher Created Materials Thames & Hudson World Bank, The Trialtea USA, LLC Turner Publishing Company University of Alaska Press University of California Press University of Chicago Press University of Illinois Press University of Massachusetts Press University of Minnesota Press University of North Carolina Press University of Pennsylvania Press University of Texas Press University of Wisconsin Press University Press of Colorado W. W. Norton & Company Walter de Gruyter, Inc. Wesleyan University Press White House Historical Association Wisconsin Historical Society Press Wolters Kluwer Health- Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins Workman Publishing Company Yale University Press YBK Publishers Pearson American Federation of Arts American College of Cardiology Imbrifex Books Waterhouse Press
saagarjha 6y ago
> Despite the self-serving library branding of its operations, IA’s conduct bears little resemblance to the trusted role that thousands of American libraries play within their communities and as participants in the lawful copyright marketplace. IA scans books from cover to cover, posts complete digital files to its website, and solicits users to access them for free by signing up for Internet Archive Accounts. I wonder how they feel about actual libraries, which make published works available for free to many people as well.
- BitwiseFool 6y ago
  If libraries weren't an ancient concept that preceeded copyright law they'd be illegal today.
  - leetrout 6y ago
    I am certain you are right. And with that knowledge would be locked away to those who could afford access (be it with money or some form of social capital to ensure inequality).
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - vmchale 6y ago
      > And with that knowledge would be locked away to those who could afford access (be it with money or some github stars.
  - user5994461 6y ago
    Libraries would be only illegal in the US though, because all these copyright issues are US specific. Archive.org might as well rebase itself somewhere else.
    - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
      [My personal opinion, unrelated to any employment:] FWIW I've studied copyright informally in UK, USA, and to a lesser extent other countries. In UK our "Fair Dealing" is highly restrictive compared to USA's Fair Use. Our (UK) archiving rights extend only to a couple of institutions and then only to people attending the library in person. We don't have rights to make backups; we don't have rights to format shift (except to help the disabled). Yes, copyright specifics apply but wrt archiving USA is far from the most restrictive regime.
pontifier 6y ago
I am involved with a business that is attempting to do a lot of the same things that Internet Archive is doing. I think they do a lot of really good things, and I'm happy that they exist, but I believe they are on the wrong side in this matter. I don't know what they were thinking. I'd love to hear how they arrived at the decision to just brazenly flout copyright law like this. I fear that they have put a lot of their other efforts in danger. I hope that my "archive and access" efforts will not be effected.
- Simulacra 6y ago
  Tell us about your business! Do you have a profitability model yet?
  - pontifier 6y ago
    It leverages the first sale doctrine to allow individual owners to access digitized versions of the media they own. I recently bought out another company that was doing the same thing and ran out of money. I'm still trying to get everything up and running before I start charging people, but my burn rate and cost structure should be manageable.
- VonGuard 6y ago
  They did it because the pandemic has closed libraries coast to coast, and it was a nice thing to do for people. Imagine that, making a decision not based on money or liability. I know, fuck them, right? /s
  - Mindwipe 6y ago
    > They did it because the pandemic has closed libraries coast to coast, and it was a nice thing to do for people. Imagine that, making a decision not based on money or liability. You mean a stupid one that endangers everything else you do, yes? Robbing a bank and giving away the money is a decision not based on money or liability, but you shouldn't be very surprised you still get put in prison for it.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
en4bz 6y ago
There's a reason this as filed in the southern district of NY [1]. IA will lose based on the results of the Redigi case. The court found that in the case of a digital phonorecord that the "tangible medium" was the hard drive of the device it was downloaded to. Thus if you want to resell an MP3 you need to sell your hard drive. You can't just copy it to someone else's and then delete it. Any copy other than the original was found to be an illegal copy. They never even looked at First Sale Doctrine which is a possible defense in this type of dispute. If you translate this too books then the book itself is the tangible medium. Scans are infringing copies and only valid for personal use. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_LLC_v._ReDigi_Inc%2E https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_LLC_v._ReDigi...
- ikeboy 6y ago
  Note that it was upheld on appeal, and so is precedent for the entire second circuit. However, I think this may be different. Defendant is a non-profit and isn't reselling anything.
  - zozbot234 6y ago
    They're also a library, and copyright law has broad exemptions for libraries that enable them to scan books for preservation purposes. So it's not clear that the "tangible medium" issue matters here.
    - ikeboy 6y ago
      There's an ongoing lawsuit involving a non-profit offering free live TV using what appears to be a loophole in the copyright laws. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locast That particular loophole probably doesn't apply there, but similar ones might.
      - Nemo_bis 6y ago
        Thanks! The case is American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Goodfriend: https://archive.org/details/gov.uscourts.nysd.520217 https://archive.org/details/gov.uscourts.nysd.520217 Also at EFF: https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-joins-locast-defense-team-fight-tv-viewers-right-use-free-legal-streaming-0 https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-joins-locast-defense-...
VonGuard 6y ago
Publishers: You cannot save our books without our permission. Also Publishers: Oh, damn.... uhm... you want THAT book? Uhm... we don't even have a copy anymore... Sorry.
- jawns 6y ago
  This is addressed within the press release. IA is claiming that they're mostly making available copies of out-of-print books that are hard to find. But that's not true. Within their "Emergency Library," there are quite a few books that were published relatively recently. For instance, I'm an author of several books. I found one of my books, from 2014, which is still in print, on their list.
  - VonGuard 6y ago
    How many views does your book have on IA. Very curious to know if it's actually impacting your sales.
    - jawns 6y ago
      I don't think it's affecting sales of my book, but that's beside the point. Copyright is about more than sales. It's about the author having the right to determine who gets to distribute and profit from their creative works. That's why you'll hear about authors and their estates turning down seemingly lucrative deals, such as movie adaptations. If the copyright holder doesn't want their work to be used in that way, they get to say no. And the Internet Archive's "we presume you've said yes unless you opt out" system flies in the face of those protections.
      - zucker42 6y ago
        > Copyright is about more than sales. It's about the author having the right to determine who gets to distribute and profit from their creative works. This is not sound justification for the existence of copyright. You're asserting that an author is deserved a special personal benefit even if that benefit hurts the general public. What other worker is afforded similar protection? In the case of the Internet Archive, they've taken a book you've already made money on, and are lending it to one person at a time. And if it's not affecting your sales, you are preventing other people from benefiting from the book for no good reason. I understand the appeal of controlling your writing, but I don't think we as a society should be giving individual authors an unbridled license to decide how we share and experience works. Furthermore, the legal (and historical) basis for copyright in the United States is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Copyright is a special monopoly, given only to promote the general welfare. This is not to say I'm against any use of copyright in principle. But the purpose of granting such a monopoly has to be to provide incentives to create writings are art, not to protect a purported natural right. I hope my message doesn't come off as disparaging to your desire to support yourself or the importance of creative work.
jvalencia 6y ago
Just as a note, here's IA's article on the subject: https://help.archive.org/hc/en-us/articles/360014759692-Rights https://help.archive.org/hc/en-us/articles/360014759692-Righ...
weinzierl 6y ago
The Internet Archive does great work and please support them if you can[1]. Still, they are a single point of failure[2] and if they should falter one day it will be a big loss. What we really need - in my opinion - is a second mainstay - an archive of the archive so to speak. [1] https://archive.org/donate/ https://archive.org/donate/ [2] Yes, I know about archive.today (formerly archive.is) but their extent is no way comparable to archive.org. Also, they don't archive pages from archive.org.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  Library Genesis serves as an unofficial alternative to Internet Archive' Open Library, with no lending controls and copyright restrictions (as they operate outside of US jurisdiction and make no attempt to adhere to copyright law, similar to SciHub). To your point, the Internet Archive most definitely needs to operate in a distributed, global fashion to prevent a single country from causing a loss of cultural data because of political winds or profits being put first. Mirror the whole thing on multiple continents.
  - tosers4 6y ago
    Isn't SciHub just a rich "client" for LibGen?
    - toomuchtodo 6y ago
      Implementation detail I gloss over for the audience.
      - 411111111111111 6y ago
        Would you call Netflix a rich client for s3 though? I think there is value in the destinction if it's only used as a storage backend, but actually gets the media through different sources.
        toomuchtodo 6y ago
H8crilA 6y ago
Thank you HN for keeping me up to speed - my usual monthly donation to IA will get a one-time boost.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
chrischen 6y ago
They should do a distributed client where opt-in users can upload their browser cache.
skratlo 6y ago
But of course this has to be... America again, American Publishers, well, fuck of, self-serving is written all over you
ikeboy 6y ago
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17211300/hachette-book-group-inc-v-internet-archive/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17211300/hachette-book-... here's the actual lawsuit.
ryanmarsh 6y ago
Considering the number of people and organizations who've suffered the embarrassment of statements that didn't age well, thoughtlessly transcribed by IA, I'm surprised it took this long for someone to try and take them down. I don't for a second believe this is motivated by anything but people who don't want a permanent public archive of the statements of powerful institutions and people.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
tingletech 6y ago
New York times story on the same subject _Publishers Sue Internet Archive Over Free E-Books_ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/books/internet-archive-emergency-library-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/books/internet-archive-em...
WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
The history of publishing orgs is one of compulsive lawsuits. > Despite Google taking measures to provide full text of only works in public domain, and providing only a searchable summary online for books still under copyright protection, publishers maintain that Google has no right to copy full text of books with copyrights and save them, in large amounts, into its own database. re: Author's Guild v. Google https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,....
obiefernandez 6y ago
I'm an author. Anyone know the most effective way for me to protest this with my publishers?
- Nemo_bis 6y ago
  Join the Authors Alliance, they have ideas. https://www.authorsalliance.org/ https://www.authorsalliance.org/ Authors should ideally never give exclusive rights to publishers, because publishers invariably abuse them (as in this lawsuit). There are some countermeasures. https://www.authorsalliance.org/resources/rights-reversion-portal/ https://www.authorsalliance.org/resources/rights-reversion-p... https://sparcopen.org/our-work/author-rights/ https://sparcopen.org/our-work/author-rights/
  - obiefernandez 6y ago
    thank you so much!
ilamont 6y ago
Indie publisher here. My company publishes mostly how-to guides relating technology, personal finance, and health. In fact this afternoon I am reviewing proofs of a new title written by a surgeon meant to inform patients (and their family members) dealing with thyroid cancer and thyroid nodules. What I and my peers do for a living is nothing like building rocket ships or designing amazing software applications, but it provides information and entertainment for millions of people every day. Like many people on HN, I regularly use the wayback machine or other parts of the Internet Archive to track the history of websites or read out-of-copyright and public domain works. Sharing this information is important and should be continued. I also believe in the concept of "Fair Use" for sharing and discussing excerpts of more current works. But when it comes to outright republishing of in-copyright printed works, the rights of creators and publishers need to be recognized. The Internet Archive decided that its mission trumped these rights and the laws of the United States. Even when it was asked to repeatedly stop, it continued. So here we are today. Someone earlier asked the question, "Why can't the publishing industry just hurry up and die?" I'd like to put the question to those HN members who work in tech: How would you feel if someone took your output without permission, whether it's designs or code or something else unique and hard to make? How would you feel if people cheered this on, or called for your demise, suggesting that the world would be a better place without your work? The traditional publishing industry has been in economic decline for 20 years, with the number of regular readers declining and most retailers on the ropes. Few publishers or authors make much money, yet the output of authors and publishers grows every year thanks to self-publishing and other trends. And some of the work published every year is fantastic. I sometimes serve as a judge for indie publishing competitions, and it's amazing some of the work that authors and their publishers are putting out, even though very few titles will turn a profit. Even if you haven't read a book in the past year or two, it's safe to say at some time you did, or your loved ones did, and it informed or delighted you. Finally, even if you don't personally care for the book industry, try to show some respect for what we're doing, and the legal and business frameworks we need to do what we do.
- pdimitar 6y ago
  > But when it comes to outright republishing of in-copyright printed works, the rights of creators and publishers need to be recognized. That would have been fine if the power balance wasn't severely tilted in favour of the publishers. Most of them are greedy rent-seeker middle-men that do much more harm to the interests of the creators compared to if they tried to self-publish. I am not doubting you in particular. An indie publisher is likely more ethical than most mainstream publishers. But you have to recognise that you have a vested financial interest and that this might make you skip the bigger picture, which is... ...that a lot of programmers are creators. We also have "publishers" (middle-men) in terms of bad employers or hiring mediators, so you maybe should make an analogy targetting them. Copyright is clearly not working for humanity because a lot of people constantly try and break it. Maybe somebody should open their eyes for that fact and think of another paradigm. We can dream.
RNCTX 6y ago
IF you wanna be more mad than this, go look up how much the university you attended spends on subscriptions to these corporate publishers. Fact is, the internet has made the business model of a middle man being required to deliver content obsolete.
kyledrake 6y ago
Loving all these controversial lawsuits and law changes (section 230) we've seen during the crisis this week. Really helpful if you're trying to bury stuff under the noise floor and away from public review. My friends at neighborhood watches in Minneapolis said some people have been trying to start fires at libraries, to say nothing of the pandemic. If you can't loan a book at the library right now, where the hell else can you?
mark_l_watson 6y ago
I love the Internet Archive and donate about once a year. That said, they should not be loaning out copyright material, even during the civil-19 problems. As an aside, I enjoy writing a lot and have released all of my later books under a Creative Commons license, so I hope my books do show up in IA. People who happen on my books may end up buying a copy sometime. One thing that bothers me though is when I find out of date versions of my books on the web. I have found my stuff in the web that is two or three editions old.
m0zg 6y ago
Hmm. I didn't know IA had _books_ in it. Thanks, publishers!
PatrolX 6y ago
IA should start respecting robots.txt disallow, because right now they ignore it.
fernly 6y ago
Just for some needed context, here's what IA says about "borrowing a book"[1]. The critical point, > Click on the book you would like to borrow. You will be taken to the item page and will be given the option to Borrow This book. Click on Borrow this Book. (If the book is on loan, you will be given an option to Join Waitlist) So, at least before "quarantime", they only propogated one copy at a time of any title. [1] https://help.archive.org/hc/en-us/articles/360016554912-Borrowing-From-The-Lending-Library-A-Basic-Guide https://help.archive.org/hc/en-us/articles/360016554912-Borr...
- voiper1 6y ago
  Yes, before the Emergency Library, they maintained a reserve of physical copies of book they bought or owned. Once that limit is reached, you can't borrow it. Sounds possibly legal. But this is new: unlimited borrowing. That's the opening for this lawsuit.

397 points by tingletech 6y ago

I was very surprised to see that Archive.org also host collections of copyrighted ROMs.

So what? If you offered a reason for why this particular article was better, then your comment would have added value. Otherwise it seems like a poorly paid social media worker at the nytimes spamming here.

tingletech 6y ago
If I were an agent for the NYT, why would I have submitted the press release vs. simply submitting the NYT article? Is there some SEO trick there? I saw the NYT piece after I posted the press release. A press release from a plaintiff announcing a lawsuit is, by its nature, one sided. The NYT coverage is more balanced, including Brewster's response for example. Based on how quick the press release jumped to the front page, I figured folks would be interested in the broader coverage. Rather than making another submission, I added a note to this submission. I thought the difference between a press release and news article was well known and did not need stating. I guess I assumed a level of information literacy that was not present in all readers, and should have said "and here is some popular reporting that gives a broader perspective than the press release I just posted above". Based on the upvotes of my additional comment, I can only assume it added value for some readers.
dang 6y ago
NYT is a perfectly legitimate source for HN and the commenter was being helpful by offering an alternate link. Please don't gum up the threads with off-topic kvetching about sites you dislike. Also, can you please not be a jerk in comments here? We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23381481 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23381481.
dang 6y ago
.

drallison 6y ago

Now would be a good time to donate funds to the Internet Archive. While you visit to give them money, check out the awesome collection. http://archive.org/donate http://archive.org/donate It is also a good time to reflect upon the very idea of intellectual property. In this age, 15th century ideas about how to protect printers may not be ideal in the 21st century. Patents and copyright are constitutionally mandated: [The Congress shall have power] “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” It is not clear that our current laws are doing the job.

luord 6y ago

An organization dedicated to preserving the knowledge of mankind or... Greedy luddites attempting to use archaic laws to try to postpone the inevitable demise of their absurd business model. This is quite the dilemma.

roryokane 6y ago

It was surprisingly difficult to find links to these supposedly-infringing libraries run by the Internet Archive. Here they are: https://archive.org/details/nationalemergencylibrary https://archive.org/details/nationalemergencylibrary https://openlibrary.org/ https://openlibrary.org/

marvindanig 6y ago

A gentle reminder that these are the same publishers who also advocate that harvested tree pulp industry does not impact the environment. As evil as they come. ;-)

falcolas 6y ago
They... don't impact the environment. The trees they use were planted for the sole purpose of being harvested. And new trees are planted for every tree that's harvested. ~~If anything, they're a net positive for the environment, since they're sequestering carbon into books.~~ EDIT: I'll acquiesce that they may not be a net positive, since there are carbon costs associated with the entire process. But, using purpose-grown trees is hard to consider as a net negative. And, if we're talking about the entire process, e-books are not carbon-zero products either.
- sjnu 6y ago
  Yep. Producing the book is free.
  - simias 6y ago
    If you have something to say then just say it, these passive aggressive quips don't really provide anything of value to the discussion.
- marvindanig 6y ago
  > they're a net positive for the environment, since they're sequestering carbon into books. You mean like 'clean coal?' Got it. And no thank you, that's not how environment math or nature works. I hope better sense will prevail eventually and you'll come around to accepting the evils under all that jargon. Edit: 'Carbon zero' is probably the best spot to be on, but isn't an achievable goal no matter what path you take. However, the net carbon impact with a digital circulation is less than 0.0003% of what a dead tree circulation would achieve nationwide in all US with a bestseller.
- smooth_remmy 6y ago

williesleg 6y ago

Of course, they want to control their own content so they can make it disappear when they need.

throwanem 6y ago

Even the press release doesn't do a good job supporting the infringement claim. They just baldly state IA isn't a real library and then hurry back to reiterate their infringement claims and talk about why infringement is bad, without ever actually explaining how IA's actions qualify as infringement. Looks like palming a card, to me.

kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
Making unauthorized copies of copyrighted material is infringement. That is why you weren't allowed to photocopy entire books before electronic distribution was viable. IA isn't on solid ground here.
- adventured 6y ago
  Nobody in this thread is discussing IA's massive violation of privacy and the way it entirely ignores GDPR as well. They won't survive any serious privacy protections in the US, it'll destroy their archive top to bottom, as they have no idea what's in it and it opens them up to unlimited liability for privacy violations. First their content knowingly violates copyright in an across the board way (they have no permission to copy and republish most of their content), second it's loaded with privacy violations. There's no scenario where IA continues to exist as-is in the future. They intentionally make it very difficult to remove content from their archive, even if it contains content that violates your privacy. IA is one of the greatest privacy violators in the tech space. You won't see that discussed very often, the fans of IA go out of their way to dodge that conversation.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    I'm not sure where you're coming from on privacy. Everything there was public at some point. But, yes, I can't in general call myself a library, scrape any web content I want, and put in on a web site. A lot of people seem to think IA has some special exemption to do so because they're a library (by some definitions) and are, in general, a valuable resource. But really they do it by being a non-profit, voluntarily respecting robots.txt (even retroactively), and generally taking stuff down when asked.

mrgalaxy 6y ago

It seems like Internet Archive's sites are just the digital versions of a normal library. Is there something I'm missing here? Are these publishers going to go after all libraries? Or is this more about the content being digital?

veonik 6y ago
The Internet Archive recently started "The Emergency Library" or something to that effect where they are now lending out unlimited books-- not limiting what and how much they lend out based on what they physically own as they did previously.
- mrgalaxy 6y ago
  Okay that seems like pretty brazen copyright infringement then. That's crazy! Maybe they hope to disrupt the publishing industry, but really just sounds like a way to get sued.
  - guidoism 6y ago
    The books are still DRMd so it's not as crazy as one might expect.
  - sp332 6y ago
    There's an opt-out. And they're partnering with a bunch of other libraries that are closed due to the pandemic so maybe they'll get to count all of those copies as well. They also excluded all books published recently. So I doubt any author or publisher will be able to show significant damages in court.
    - jawns 6y ago
      > They also excluded all books published recently. One of my books was published in 2014 and is on the list. > There's an opt-out. Because authors can opt out of having their books pirated, that makes it OK? How are authors notified about the existence of the opt-out? Oh, they're not? Hmm.

EvanAnderson 6y ago

Why can't the publishing industry just hurry up and die? They provide fewer and fewer valuable services as the marginal cost of content distribution approaches zero and they just seem more like rent seekers.

toomuchtodo 6y ago
Luckily, this press release documents which publishers you shouldn't buy books from going forward. > Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, John Wiley & Sons and Penguin Random House
- hedora 6y ago
  Here is a full list of members. If you have influence over them (springer, yale, acs, harvard press, university of california, Illinois, MOMA, etc), it would be reasonable to pressure them to withdraw their membership from the Association of American Publishers The list is here, but it takes multiple seconds to render each of the many pages: https://publishers.org/who-we-are/our-members/ https://publishers.org/who-we-are/our-members/ 1517 Media Academic Innovations Albert Whitman & Company American Anthropological Association (AAA) American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) American Chemical Society (ACS) American Dental Association Publishing (ADA) American Diabetes Association American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) American Medical Association (AMA) American Physical Society (APS) American Physiological Society, The (APS) American Psychological Association (APA) American Reading Company American School for Classical Studies at Athens (ASCSA) American Society for Indexing (ASI) American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) American Thoracic Society (ATS) American University in Cairo Press Applied Educational Systems Aquila Polonica (U.S.) LTD Bar Charts, Inc. Baylor University Press Benchmark Education Co. Berghahn Books Bernson LTD (Big Hat Press) BioZone USA Blooming Twig Books Bloomsbury USA BMJ Publishing Group Limited Bonnier Publishing USA British American Publishing Brookings Institution Press Burn House Publishing Cambridge Information Group (CIG) Cambridge University Press Catapult Caslon, Inc. Cato Institute Cengage Learning Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) Chronicle Books Cider Mill Press Book Publishers Columbia University Press City Lights Booksellers & Publishers Common Ground Research Network Crossway Davies Publishing Inc. Davis Publications Inc. Disney Publishing Worldwide Experiment, The F.A. Davis Company Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) Fordham University Press General Conference of 7th-Day Adventists Georgetown University Press Georgia McBride Media Group Getty Publications GoodKnight Books Greystone Books Ltd Group Publishing Grove/Atlantic, Inc. Hachette Book Group Hansen Publishing HarperCollins Publishers Worldwide Harrington Park Press Harvard Business Review Group Harvard University Press Hogrefe Publishing Holiday House Inc. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES) Humanix Books Independent Institute, The INFORMS International Monetary Fund (IMF) InterVarsity Press John Hunt Publishing John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Johns Hopkins University Press The Journal of American Academy of Business (JAABC) Judson Press Kappa Delta Pi Kodansha USA Libros Publishing Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc Macmillan Massachusetts Medical Society Materials Research Forum McGraw Hill Education MedMaster Inc Melville House Michigan State University Press Moody Publishers Morgan & Claypool Publishers Morton Publishing Company Museum of Modern Art , The (MOMA) National Academies Press Naval Institute Press New World Library NY Media Works, LLC NYU Press Oak Knoll Press Okapi Educational Publishing, Inc. Oncology Nursing Society Optical Society of America (OSA) Oxford University Press Penguin Random House Pennsylvania State University Press Princeton University Press Pushkin Press Quirk Books RELX Group Riverdale Avenue Books Rosen Publishing Group SAGE Publications Scholastic Testing Service, Inc Scholastic, Inc. Simon & Schuster Social Studies School Service Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM) Springer Publishing Company Stanford University Press Story Plant, The Tanglewood Publishing, Inc. Taylor and Francis Group Teachers College Press Teacher Created Materials Thames & Hudson World Bank, The Trialtea USA, LLC Turner Publishing Company University of Alaska Press University of California Press University of Chicago Press University of Illinois Press University of Massachusetts Press University of Minnesota Press University of North Carolina Press University of Pennsylvania Press University of Texas Press University of Wisconsin Press University Press of Colorado W. W. Norton & Company Walter de Gruyter, Inc. Wesleyan University Press White House Historical Association Wisconsin Historical Society Press Wolters Kluwer Health- Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins Workman Publishing Company Yale University Press YBK Publishers Pearson American Federation of Arts American College of Cardiology Imbrifex Books Waterhouse Press

saagarjha 6y ago

> Despite the self-serving library branding of its operations, IA’s conduct bears little resemblance to the trusted role that thousands of American libraries play within their communities and as participants in the lawful copyright marketplace. IA scans books from cover to cover, posts complete digital files to its website, and solicits users to access them for free by signing up for Internet Archive Accounts. I wonder how they feel about actual libraries, which make published works available for free to many people as well.

BitwiseFool 6y ago
If libraries weren't an ancient concept that preceeded copyright law they'd be illegal today.
- leetrout 6y ago
  I am certain you are right. And with that knowledge would be locked away to those who could afford access (be it with money or some form of social capital to ensure inequality).
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - vmchale 6y ago
    > And with that knowledge would be locked away to those who could afford access (be it with money or some github stars.
- user5994461 6y ago
  Libraries would be only illegal in the US though, because all these copyright issues are US specific. Archive.org might as well rebase itself somewhere else.
  - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
    [My personal opinion, unrelated to any employment:] FWIW I've studied copyright informally in UK, USA, and to a lesser extent other countries. In UK our "Fair Dealing" is highly restrictive compared to USA's Fair Use. Our (UK) archiving rights extend only to a couple of institutions and then only to people attending the library in person. We don't have rights to make backups; we don't have rights to format shift (except to help the disabled). Yes, copyright specifics apply but wrt archiving USA is far from the most restrictive regime.

pontifier 6y ago

I am involved with a business that is attempting to do a lot of the same things that Internet Archive is doing. I think they do a lot of really good things, and I'm happy that they exist, but I believe they are on the wrong side in this matter. I don't know what they were thinking. I'd love to hear how they arrived at the decision to just brazenly flout copyright law like this. I fear that they have put a lot of their other efforts in danger. I hope that my "archive and access" efforts will not be effected.

Simulacra 6y ago
Tell us about your business! Do you have a profitability model yet?
- pontifier 6y ago
  It leverages the first sale doctrine to allow individual owners to access digitized versions of the media they own. I recently bought out another company that was doing the same thing and ran out of money. I'm still trying to get everything up and running before I start charging people, but my burn rate and cost structure should be manageable.
VonGuard 6y ago
They did it because the pandemic has closed libraries coast to coast, and it was a nice thing to do for people. Imagine that, making a decision not based on money or liability. I know, fuck them, right? /s
- Mindwipe 6y ago
  > They did it because the pandemic has closed libraries coast to coast, and it was a nice thing to do for people. Imagine that, making a decision not based on money or liability. You mean a stupid one that endangers everything else you do, yes? Robbing a bank and giving away the money is a decision not based on money or liability, but you shouldn't be very surprised you still get put in prison for it.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

en4bz 6y ago

There's a reason this as filed in the southern district of NY [1]. IA will lose based on the results of the Redigi case. The court found that in the case of a digital phonorecord that the "tangible medium" was the hard drive of the device it was downloaded to. Thus if you want to resell an MP3 you need to sell your hard drive. You can't just copy it to someone else's and then delete it. Any copy other than the original was found to be an illegal copy. They never even looked at First Sale Doctrine which is a possible defense in this type of dispute. If you translate this too books then the book itself is the tangible medium. Scans are infringing copies and only valid for personal use. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_LLC_v._ReDigi_Inc%2E https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_LLC_v._ReDigi...

ikeboy 6y ago
Note that it was upheld on appeal, and so is precedent for the entire second circuit. However, I think this may be different. Defendant is a non-profit and isn't reselling anything.
- zozbot234 6y ago
  They're also a library, and copyright law has broad exemptions for libraries that enable them to scan books for preservation purposes. So it's not clear that the "tangible medium" issue matters here.
  - ikeboy 6y ago
    There's an ongoing lawsuit involving a non-profit offering free live TV using what appears to be a loophole in the copyright laws. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locast That particular loophole probably doesn't apply there, but similar ones might.
    - Nemo_bis 6y ago
      Thanks! The case is American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Goodfriend: https://archive.org/details/gov.uscourts.nysd.520217 https://archive.org/details/gov.uscourts.nysd.520217 Also at EFF: https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-joins-locast-defense-team-fight-tv-viewers-right-use-free-legal-streaming-0 https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-joins-locast-defense-...

VonGuard 6y ago

Publishers: You cannot save our books without our permission. Also Publishers: Oh, damn.... uhm... you want THAT book? Uhm... we don't even have a copy anymore... Sorry.

jawns 6y ago
This is addressed within the press release. IA is claiming that they're mostly making available copies of out-of-print books that are hard to find. But that's not true. Within their "Emergency Library," there are quite a few books that were published relatively recently. For instance, I'm an author of several books. I found one of my books, from 2014, which is still in print, on their list.
- VonGuard 6y ago
  How many views does your book have on IA. Very curious to know if it's actually impacting your sales.
  - jawns 6y ago
    I don't think it's affecting sales of my book, but that's beside the point. Copyright is about more than sales. It's about the author having the right to determine who gets to distribute and profit from their creative works. That's why you'll hear about authors and their estates turning down seemingly lucrative deals, such as movie adaptations. If the copyright holder doesn't want their work to be used in that way, they get to say no. And the Internet Archive's "we presume you've said yes unless you opt out" system flies in the face of those protections.
    - zucker42 6y ago
      > Copyright is about more than sales. It's about the author having the right to determine who gets to distribute and profit from their creative works. This is not sound justification for the existence of copyright. You're asserting that an author is deserved a special personal benefit even if that benefit hurts the general public. What other worker is afforded similar protection? In the case of the Internet Archive, they've taken a book you've already made money on, and are lending it to one person at a time. And if it's not affecting your sales, you are preventing other people from benefiting from the book for no good reason. I understand the appeal of controlling your writing, but I don't think we as a society should be giving individual authors an unbridled license to decide how we share and experience works. Furthermore, the legal (and historical) basis for copyright in the United States is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Copyright is a special monopoly, given only to promote the general welfare. This is not to say I'm against any use of copyright in principle. But the purpose of granting such a monopoly has to be to provide incentives to create writings are art, not to protect a purported natural right. I hope my message doesn't come off as disparaging to your desire to support yourself or the importance of creative work.

jvalencia 6y ago

Just as a note, here's IA's article on the subject: https://help.archive.org/hc/en-us/articles/360014759692-Rights https://help.archive.org/hc/en-us/articles/360014759692-Righ...

weinzierl 6y ago

The Internet Archive does great work and please support them if you can[1]. Still, they are a single point of failure[2] and if they should falter one day it will be a big loss. What we really need - in my opinion - is a second mainstay - an archive of the archive so to speak. [1] https://archive.org/donate/ https://archive.org/donate/ [2] Yes, I know about archive.today (formerly archive.is) but their extent is no way comparable to archive.org. Also, they don't archive pages from archive.org.

toomuchtodo 6y ago
Library Genesis serves as an unofficial alternative to Internet Archive' Open Library, with no lending controls and copyright restrictions (as they operate outside of US jurisdiction and make no attempt to adhere to copyright law, similar to SciHub). To your point, the Internet Archive most definitely needs to operate in a distributed, global fashion to prevent a single country from causing a loss of cultural data because of political winds or profits being put first. Mirror the whole thing on multiple continents.
- tosers4 6y ago
  Isn't SciHub just a rich "client" for LibGen?
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    Implementation detail I gloss over for the audience.
    - 411111111111111 6y ago
      Would you call Netflix a rich client for s3 though? I think there is value in the destinction if it's only used as a storage backend, but actually gets the media through different sources.
      - toomuchtodo 6y ago

H8crilA 6y ago

Thank you HN for keeping me up to speed - my usual monthly donation to IA will get a one-time boost.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

chrischen 6y ago

They should do a distributed client where opt-in users can upload their browser cache.

skratlo 6y ago

But of course this has to be... America again, American Publishers, well, fuck of, self-serving is written all over you

ikeboy 6y ago

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17211300/hachette-book-group-inc-v-internet-archive/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17211300/hachette-book-... here's the actual lawsuit.

ryanmarsh 6y ago

Considering the number of people and organizations who've suffered the embarrassment of statements that didn't age well, thoughtlessly transcribed by IA, I'm surprised it took this long for someone to try and take them down. I don't for a second believe this is motivated by anything but people who don't want a permanent public archive of the statements of powerful institutions and people.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

tingletech 6y ago

New York times story on the same subject _Publishers Sue Internet Archive Over Free E-Books_ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/books/internet-archive-emergency-library-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/books/internet-archive-em...

WarOnPrivacy 6y ago

The history of publishing orgs is one of compulsive lawsuits. > Despite Google taking measures to provide full text of only works in public domain, and providing only a searchable summary online for books still under copyright protection, publishers maintain that Google has no right to copy full text of books with copyrights and save them, in large amounts, into its own database. re: Author's Guild v. Google https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,....

obiefernandez 6y ago

I'm an author. Anyone know the most effective way for me to protest this with my publishers?

Nemo_bis 6y ago
Join the Authors Alliance, they have ideas. https://www.authorsalliance.org/ https://www.authorsalliance.org/ Authors should ideally never give exclusive rights to publishers, because publishers invariably abuse them (as in this lawsuit). There are some countermeasures. https://www.authorsalliance.org/resources/rights-reversion-portal/ https://www.authorsalliance.org/resources/rights-reversion-p... https://sparcopen.org/our-work/author-rights/ https://sparcopen.org/our-work/author-rights/
- obiefernandez 6y ago
  thank you so much!

ilamont 6y ago

Indie publisher here. My company publishes mostly how-to guides relating technology, personal finance, and health. In fact this afternoon I am reviewing proofs of a new title written by a surgeon meant to inform patients (and their family members) dealing with thyroid cancer and thyroid nodules. What I and my peers do for a living is nothing like building rocket ships or designing amazing software applications, but it provides information and entertainment for millions of people every day. Like many people on HN, I regularly use the wayback machine or other parts of the Internet Archive to track the history of websites or read out-of-copyright and public domain works. Sharing this information is important and should be continued. I also believe in the concept of "Fair Use" for sharing and discussing excerpts of more current works. But when it comes to outright republishing of in-copyright printed works, the rights of creators and publishers need to be recognized. The Internet Archive decided that its mission trumped these rights and the laws of the United States. Even when it was asked to repeatedly stop, it continued. So here we are today. Someone earlier asked the question, "Why can't the publishing industry just hurry up and die?" I'd like to put the question to those HN members who work in tech: How would you feel if someone took your output without permission, whether it's designs or code or something else unique and hard to make? How would you feel if people cheered this on, or called for your demise, suggesting that the world would be a better place without your work? The traditional publishing industry has been in economic decline for 20 years, with the number of regular readers declining and most retailers on the ropes. Few publishers or authors make much money, yet the output of authors and publishers grows every year thanks to self-publishing and other trends. And some of the work published every year is fantastic. I sometimes serve as a judge for indie publishing competitions, and it's amazing some of the work that authors and their publishers are putting out, even though very few titles will turn a profit. Even if you haven't read a book in the past year or two, it's safe to say at some time you did, or your loved ones did, and it informed or delighted you. Finally, even if you don't personally care for the book industry, try to show some respect for what we're doing, and the legal and business frameworks we need to do what we do.

pdimitar 6y ago
> But when it comes to outright republishing of in-copyright printed works, the rights of creators and publishers need to be recognized. That would have been fine if the power balance wasn't severely tilted in favour of the publishers. Most of them are greedy rent-seeker middle-men that do much more harm to the interests of the creators compared to if they tried to self-publish. I am not doubting you in particular. An indie publisher is likely more ethical than most mainstream publishers. But you have to recognise that you have a vested financial interest and that this might make you skip the bigger picture, which is... ...that a lot of programmers are creators. We also have "publishers" (middle-men) in terms of bad employers or hiring mediators, so you maybe should make an analogy targetting them. Copyright is clearly not working for humanity because a lot of people constantly try and break it. Maybe somebody should open their eyes for that fact and think of another paradigm. We can dream.

RNCTX 6y ago

IF you wanna be more mad than this, go look up how much the university you attended spends on subscriptions to these corporate publishers. Fact is, the internet has made the business model of a middle man being required to deliver content obsolete.

kyledrake 6y ago

Loving all these controversial lawsuits and law changes (section 230) we've seen during the crisis this week. Really helpful if you're trying to bury stuff under the noise floor and away from public review. My friends at neighborhood watches in Minneapolis said some people have been trying to start fires at libraries, to say nothing of the pandemic. If you can't loan a book at the library right now, where the hell else can you?

mark_l_watson 6y ago

I love the Internet Archive and donate about once a year. That said, they should not be loaning out copyright material, even during the civil-19 problems. As an aside, I enjoy writing a lot and have released all of my later books under a Creative Commons license, so I hope my books do show up in IA. People who happen on my books may end up buying a copy sometime. One thing that bothers me though is when I find out of date versions of my books on the web. I have found my stuff in the web that is two or three editions old.

m0zg 6y ago

Hmm. I didn't know IA had _books_ in it. Thanks, publishers!

PatrolX 6y ago

IA should start respecting robots.txt disallow, because right now they ignore it.

fernly 6y ago

Just for some needed context, here's what IA says about "borrowing a book"[1]. The critical point, > Click on the book you would like to borrow. You will be taken to the item page and will be given the option to Borrow This book. Click on Borrow this Book. (If the book is on loan, you will be given an option to Join Waitlist) So, at least before "quarantime", they only propogated one copy at a time of any title. [1] https://help.archive.org/hc/en-us/articles/360016554912-Borrowing-From-The-Lending-Library-A-Basic-Guide https://help.archive.org/hc/en-us/articles/360016554912-Borr...

voiper1 6y ago
Yes, before the Emergency Library, they maintained a reserve of physical copies of book they bought or owned. Once that limit is reached, you can't borrow it. Sounds possibly legal. But this is new: unlimited borrowing. That's the opening for this lawsuit.