4 ms·

> However, the publishers may not be interested in forcing the Internet Archive out of business. Their goal is to get the Internet Archive to stop scanning thei

> However, the publishers may not be interested in forcing the Internet Archive out of business. Their goal is to get the Internet Archive to stop scanning their books. If they win the lawsuit, they might force the group to shut down its book scanning operation and promise to not start it up again, then allow it to continue its other, less controversial offerings. Some context is useful. The IA, due to the coronavirus, is no longer lending digital books via "controlled digital lending." Now, an "unlimited number of people can check out the same book at the same time." I can understand why the publishers would be upset. The IA need not go bankrupt for this. They may simply capitulate and revert this new feature. I am not convinced the publishers want to take the IA down; they merely want to threaten that unlimited concurrent checkouts should not be permitted (and perhaps, even more, that no books at all should be scanned).

criddell 6y ago
As I understand it, the lawsuit is a result of IA refusing a request to revert the feature. IA will lose and even if they do capitulate now, they are probably going to have to pay the plaintiff's lawyers.
zozbot234 6y ago
> is no longer lending digital books via "controlled digital lending." This is definitely inaccurate. Many elements of CDL are clearly still in effect, such as the use of DRM to enforce the "check out" provision. It's a real lending system. The only thing that's new is the "unlimited" claim wrt. the number of copies that can be checked out at any given time - and we still don't know how far that "unlimited" actually goes. We should wait for IA's legal response on this.
- vonquant 6y ago
  Is the extent of the 'unlimited' important? Lending a single book more than they own is an impossibility if they are respecting IP - no different to a physical library photocopying entire books so they can lend more.
mcguire 6y ago
"(and perhaps, even more, that no books at all should be scanned)" I believe this to be the publishers' goal; they have been complaining about the IA's digital copies for years. And that includes out-of-copyright and out-of-print books.

criddell 6y ago

As I understand it, the lawsuit is a result of IA refusing a request to revert the feature. IA will lose and even if they do capitulate now, they are probably going to have to pay the plaintiff's lawyers.

zozbot234 6y ago

> is no longer lending digital books via "controlled digital lending." This is definitely inaccurate. Many elements of CDL are clearly still in effect, such as the use of DRM to enforce the "check out" provision. It's a real lending system. The only thing that's new is the "unlimited" claim wrt. the number of copies that can be checked out at any given time - and we still don't know how far that "unlimited" actually goes. We should wait for IA's legal response on this.

vonquant 6y ago
Is the extent of the 'unlimited' important? Lending a single book more than they own is an impossibility if they are respecting IP - no different to a physical library photocopying entire books so they can lend more.

mcguire 6y ago

"(and perhaps, even more, that no books at all should be scanned)" I believe this to be the publishers' goal; they have been complaining about the IA's digital copies for years. And that includes out-of-copyright and out-of-print books.