5 ms·

Considering they were only lending to one person at a time, it does seem like the lawsuit is uncalled for.

by karlp 6y ago

martin__ 6y ago
Last I heard from this story, the lawsuit was because of unlimited lending: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23391662 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23391662
- criddell 6y ago
  I wonder what the truth is. In this article Kahle makes it sound like they are lending one digital copy for every physical copy that is locked up in a library somewhere and not circulating.
  - jandrese 6y ago
    From what I understand that was the original policy but when COVID hit they announced that they were removing those restrictions. Commenters went “you’re gonna get sued” and then archive.org was all surprised Pikachu face when their mailbox filled up with lawsuits.
  - duxup 6y ago
    They say that now, but man I only remember them announcing that the limits were off whole hog. Not sure what the legal standing is loaning ebooks based on "well someone else isn't using their book".
- mcguire 6y ago
  If so, then the lawsuit would likely be dismissed for lack of standing. (Yes, yes, they may have loaned more copies of a particular work than they had, but those loans have expired now.)
bryanrasmussen 6y ago
I certainly appreciate what they did and I donate to the Internet Archive but what does lending to one person at a time mean here? It's on the internet, anyone could lend, as far as I know. If 1000 users come on a shopping portal and buy things they are all buying one at a time, but 1000 transactions are still done.
- pwinnski 6y ago
  Not the person to whom you're replying, but I believe they meant that Archive.org only loans out as many copies of a book as they have access to physically. Mr. Kahle is now claiming that they kept that up during the emergency period, but expanding the pool of physical books to include those being held my libraries around the country. That doesn't seem to quite line up with what I remember, which was the term "unlimited," but we'll see how that shakes out in court.

Considering they were only lending to one person at a time, it does seem like the lawsuit is uncalled for.

by karlp 6y ago

Considering they were only lending to one person at a time, it does seem like the lawsuit is uncalled for.

Last I heard from this story, the lawsuit was because of unlimited lending: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23391662 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23391662

criddell 6y ago
I wonder what the truth is. In this article Kahle makes it sound like they are lending one digital copy for every physical copy that is locked up in a library somewhere and not circulating.
- jandrese 6y ago
  From what I understand that was the original policy but when COVID hit they announced that they were removing those restrictions. Commenters went “you’re gonna get sued” and then archive.org was all surprised Pikachu face when their mailbox filled up with lawsuits.
- duxup 6y ago
  They say that now, but man I only remember them announcing that the limits were off whole hog. Not sure what the legal standing is loaning ebooks based on "well someone else isn't using their book".
mcguire 6y ago
If so, then the lawsuit would likely be dismissed for lack of standing. (Yes, yes, they may have loaned more copies of a particular work than they had, but those loans have expired now.)

bryanrasmussen 6y ago

I certainly appreciate what they did and I donate to the Internet Archive but what does lending to one person at a time mean here? It's on the internet, anyone could lend, as far as I know. If 1000 users come on a shopping portal and buy things they are all buying one at a time, but 1000 transactions are still done.

pwinnski 6y ago
Not the person to whom you're replying, but I believe they meant that Archive.org only loans out as many copies of a book as they have access to physically. Mr. Kahle is now claiming that they kept that up during the emergency period, but expanding the pool of physical books to include those being held my libraries around the country. That doesn't seem to quite line up with what I remember, which was the term "unlimited," but we'll see how that shakes out in court.