20 ms·

Tell HN: Internet Archive is facing a Big 4 Publishers lawsuit

746 points by antiverse 4y ago

Not sure why this isn't more prominently highlighted, but this is a very culturally significant project and a custodian of a tremendous amount of Internet and WWW-oriented history. I would imagine HN would put this at the forefront of the discussions happening here. I'm not affiliated, but I am a concerned netizen. All of us here have benefited from The IA. Please help raise awareness as to what is happening. Read more here, and elsewhere - https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/07/14/cucd-j14.html > In June 2020, four major publishers—John Wiley & Sons and three of the big five US publishers, Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins and Penguin Random House—filed a lawsuit against the Internet Archive, claiming the non-profit organization, “is engaged in willful mass copyright infringement.” > The lawsuit stems from the corporate publishers response to an innovative temporary initiative launched by the Internet Archive during the first months of the coronavirus pandemic called the National Emergency Library. Given the impact of the public health emergency, the Internet Archive decided to ease its book lending restrictions and allow multiple people to check out the same digital copy of a book at once. > Up to that point, the Internet Archive had established a practice of purchasing copies of printed books, digitizing them and lending them to borrowers one at a time. When it kicked-off the emergency lending program, the Internet Archive made it clear that this policy would be in effect until the end of the pandemic. Furthermore, the archive’s publishers said that this program was in response to library doors being closed to the public during the pandemic. Under conditions where the Internet Archive was the only means of access to titles for many people, the policy was justified and a creative response to COVID-19.

capableweb 4y ago
I love the Internet Archive and frequently donate to them (2 times so far this year). What I'd love to see improved is the ability to be less "fragile". Currently it's all located in the US and they have a huge focus on the US, both technically and politically. But why not try to replicate it all over the world? There seems to have been some smaller efforts inside the Internet Archive to make it more decentralized, but it feels like it should be a much bigger focus on it.
- daniel_reetz 4y ago
  It might not be widely known, but they have in the past had copies of the Archive in Alexandria and other locations. From my brief time there, I know that issues like these are of great concern to the Archive.
  - hcs 4y ago
    I recall they'd announced the intention to set up a mirror in Canada, did that ever materialize? https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/11/worried-about-us-surveillance-internet-archive-announces-mirror-in-canada/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/11/worried-about-us...
    - capableweb 4y ago
      They opened a new headquarters in Vancouver recently: - https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/the-internet-archive-opens-headquarters-meeting-space-for-the-tech-world https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/the-internet-archiv... (Jun 16, 2022) - On HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31774608 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31774608 (219 points | 64 comments) But it seems like a strange location. Why not really branch out and meet the world instead of just sticking around North America?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- lwswl 4y ago
  It would be harder to focus all the blame, and the hand of the law, on a single institution. Currently, only the IA will fall, and anyone who benefited from their seeming folly will have no issues.
- jazzyjackson 4y ago
  is there any group lobbying for the abolishment of all copyright? I'd like to donate to them.
  - 4y ago
jacquesm 4y ago
They did a pretty dumb thing and that's me being a supporter. I really wished they had thought a little longer before pulling that particular stunt.
- gjs278 4y ago
- samwillis 4y ago
  Exactly, they should have reached out to the closed public libraries and come to an agreement where they lent out digital copies 1:1 of copies owned by closed libraries. It would have been an incredible initiative that could have become sustainable well past the pandemic.
  - wmf 4y ago
    they lent out digital copies 1:1 of copies owned by closed libraries That would probably have triggered the same lawsuit. You cannot rent digital copies of physical works no matter how much sense it makes.
    - Rebelgecko 4y ago
      IIRC, IA had already been doing that for years. This lawsuit is happening because they stopped limiting digital loans to the number of physical copies IA and their partners had on hand
    - daniel_reetz 4y ago
      This is not as legally clear cut as you make it seem. There's plenty of legal discussion around the issue of format shifting books.
    - Beldin 4y ago
      It possibly could have, but the circumstances would be significantly different. They did not impose any restrictions this time. If they hadc dinner it as GP suggests, they could easily argue that they made a fair and honest effort to not let closures in the physical world affect library availability. This probably still runs counter to copyright law. Were thr IA to lose such a case, the reasonableness of the approach in the face of such extraordinary circumstances would provide ample impetus to revaluate copyright legislation. Unlike the current situation. Basically: No one likes throwing the book at the heroes; if the bad guys force that, society may start rewriting the book.
wmf 4y ago
It's been discussed extensively: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23379775 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23379775 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23998115 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23998115 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23691297 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23691297 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23485182 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23485182 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23391662 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23391662
- dang 4y ago
  Thanks! Macroexpanded: Activists rally to save Internet Archive as lawsuit threatens site (2020) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31703394 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31703394 - June 2022 (32 comments) Help preserve the internet with Archiveteam's warrior - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30524842 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30524842 - March 2022 (51 comments) Internet Archive responds to publishers’ lawsuit - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23998115 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23998115 - July 2020 (348 comments) My thoughts in response to the lawsuit against the Internet Archive - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23931183 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23931183 - July 2020 (232 comments) EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23691297 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23691297 - June 2020 (263 comments) Activists rally to save Internet Archive as lawsuit threatens site - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23485182 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23485182 - June 2020 (393 comments) Lawsuit over online book lending could bankrupt Internet Archive - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23391662 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23391662 - June 2020 (260 comments) Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23379775 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23379775 - June 2020 (346 comments) Internet Archive responds: Why we released the National Emergency Library - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22731472 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22731472 - March 2020 (145 comments) Internet Archive’s National Emergency Library Harms Authors - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22716923 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22716923 - March 2020 (48 comments)
COGlory 4y ago
So...they didn't think the law should apply so they just decided to ignore it? What were they expecting? How can they possibly expect to win this lawsuit? I hate copyright with all my soul but this is just stupid. You can't just decide to take the law into your own hand. This is just a waste of money and effort.
- bencollier49 4y ago
  To be honest I love their computer games archive, but it boggles my mind that it's allowed to exist.
  - hungryforcodes 4y ago
    Which is where the thinking that lead to this lawsuit begins. Almost all those games are abandonware and or over 20 years old. Normal copyright should not apply there.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - bencollier49 4y ago
      Well the law is written that way, and I don't think it's completely unreasonable (at least to the life of the originator). Just seems like the IA have been bold as brass here. Also, the term "abandonware" is hugely overused. There are tonnes of shareware premium versions on there where it's super easy to contact the creators. I've never failed to do so.
- metadat 4y ago
  The mission of preserving human culture is far more important than respecting rent-seeking copyright holders. At the end of the day, The Internet Archive has good intentions and is morally in the right. The time has come to consider changing the laws to allow for truly fair use, especially for physical items scanned to digital (e.g. books), old video games, and more. It's about selecting for the common good over the extremely low-value proposition of helping rent-seekers preserve an infinite zero-effort stream of income. TIA is one of the best things to emerge from tech, all thanks to the tireless and complete dedication of the founder: Brewster Kahle. I don't know if they still do it, but pre-pandemic they offered tours of their HQ in San Francisco. It was really cool to meet the team and see their setup, and an amazing opportunity to meet Brewster and hear the conviction in his voice as he described his vision for The Internet Archive. It's a very special thing.. imagine if it didn't exist? I am feeling tears coming just considering such a possible reality.
TekMol 4y ago
I never understood how the IA can get away with copying all those websites and all their content as if copyright did not exist. Can anybody enlighten me how they have not been sued into oblivion and sit in prison already?
- samwillis 4y ago
  If you ask to have something removed, or to exclude your site, they do. They comply with robots.txt, I believe even retrospectively. I think they try hard NOT to be sued. They are also not making a profit from “copied” content, and so damages would be small. Particularly as they would immediately remove the problematic content.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    Basically (until now), they make themselves as reasonable and as little of a target as they can.
- perth 4y ago
  They have a few special permissions from the US federal government which certainly doesn’t hurt when it comes to archival efforts
- rwmj 4y ago
  Browsers copy and store websites as part of their normal functioning. If you didn't want your website to be copied and stored then maybe it was better not to put it up in the first place? Anyway the IA will remove everything with a very simple, automated text file placed in the root directory.
  - BeetleB 4y ago
    Browsers can copy and store, but republishing is a totally different matter.
  - throwk8s 4y ago
    > Anyway the IA will remove everything with a very simple, automated text file placed in the root directory. What if the site is simply gone, or now belongs to someone else who is not the owner of the archived content?
Rebelgecko 4y ago
This is pretty much why I stopped donating to them, not like they'll miss the sporadic $50 they'd get from me. Getting sued is a pretty obvious result of their decision to ignore copyright laws. If they didn't realize that they'd be sued then they're hopelessly shortsighted (there's no "emergency" exemption to copyright laws, even if you can make the argument that morally there should be). If they did know that they'd be sued, the message they're projecting is that they have enough leftover money to burn that they can branch out from their core competencies and try their hand at legal activism.
- themitigating 4y ago
  There are exceptions to copyright law: https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html Maybe they're trying to set a legal precedent, which sounds great. I don't know why but I read your comment in such a negative tone. "Rebel"gecko indeed
  - Rebelgecko 4y ago
    I don't really see how the ongoing pandemic would change the results of the fair use 4 factors test. I think the moral arguments in favor of IA's unrestricted lending are much more compelling than the legal ones (ofc I'm not a copyright law expert so I could be totally wrong). Part of being a good rebel is to choose your battles wisely :) I think IA does a good job at that when they distribute abandonware or public domain materials. Trying to share unlimited copies of Harry Potter seems much more quixotic.
- capableweb 4y ago
  > they can branch out from their core competencies Being a library is their core mission and fighting what they are fighting now is one of the reasons I keep donating to them. I want them to be able to offer a digital library all over the world, this for me is the Internet Archive.
- dghlsakjg 4y ago
  It doesn't seem as cut and dry as you make it seem. Archival institutions are allowed to make digitized copies of legitimately owned works, and to allow access to that copy on their own "premises". In the case of an organization like the internet archive which does not have physical premises, would you accept the argument that their 'premises' is the internet? The question that they want answered is: where exactly is the line between looking at a scanned/microfiched/non-original archival copy of copyrighted material at the library, and viewing that same material over a network connection. They weren't just handing out unlimited copies of books. They were distributing owned copies of books for exclusive temporary use. The method of delivery is different, but the end result is the same as checking a book out and leaving the library. Just because public libraries signed shitty deals to get access to lending ebook licenses doesn't mean that the right to lend archival material over the network doesn't exist. I would love for the courts to establish a first-sale doctrine that applies to digitized books, or that allows shifting a books format (buying a physical copy of a book and converting it to digital)
lwswl 4y ago
I believe there are certain large corporations(far larger then Harper Collins et al.) which would benefit from an enlarging of the domain of fair use around now. Those pockets are large, and the display of the dollar does more to sway Judges than any real interpretation of the law. It is safe to say that they will succeed in their (seemingly useless) endeavor.
- twblalock 4y ago
  > I believe there are certain large corporations(far larger then Harper Collins et al.) which would benefit from an enlarging of the domain of fair use around now. Who are those corporations and how would they benefit?
  - wmf 4y ago
    Tech is far larger than publishing and there's potentially more money to be made organizing/consuming the world's information than in owning it. Some people have been pointing this out for 20 years.
    - jl6 4y ago
      For example, Apple could buy News Corporation (the parent company of HarperCollins, one of the litigants) with a single quarter’s profits. Not revenue, profit. News Corporation enterprise value: $11bn Apple quarterly profit: $25bn
      - twblalock 4y ago
        Yes but why should Apple do that? How would Apple benefit from doing that?
        jl6 4y ago
        They could use all the books as a loss leader for the Apple ecosystem, similar to how Google Maps spends billions on data that is made available for “free”.
antiverse 4y ago
It's disappointing to hear, with the number of people here claiming how IA has run afoul of the copyright law, that it's an open-and-shut case and there is nothing more to discuss. I feel like the air of the hacker spirit on the website is greatly diminished when we take an ice-cold approach to a difficult problem like this. I for one commend them for doing a noble thing in a very turbulent time. We didn't know how the pandemic was going to play out early on in 2020 and they went ahead to help out in any way they could. Perhaps the US Federal Government will give them some kind of an exemption (if such a thing exists). I'm sure they can find a case where their action is justified in the eyes of law.
- PragmaticPulp 4y ago
  > I feel like the air of the hacker spirit on the website is greatly diminished when we take an ice-cold approach to a difficult problem like this. That “hacker spirit” has put years of extremely valuable internet archives at risk for an extremely insignificant gain, all due to a legal issue that anyone could see coming from a mile away. Hacker spirit and playing fast and loose with the rules might fly when you’re a fresh startup with nothing to lose. It’s just plain irresponsible when you start putting an established business at risk in ways that were trivially avoided.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    Indeed. They could have easily isolated themselves from the fall out if they wanted to make a point about the law.
- wmf 4y ago
  I don't consider it an open-and-shut case, but they're putting the archive at risk and they may not have enough money to win and I don't want to donate money to their lawyers. I wouldn't have a problem if they spun off a separate organization for this so it didn't threaten the archive.
FpUser 4y ago
Time to change the law. It does not benefit people in this particular case.
kup0 4y ago
I agree with the Internet Archive on philosophical/ideological grounds and support their actions overall... _However_, they have to operate under the same BS everyone else does, so it seems naïve for them to take reckless actions that could put them in this position
- Gleaming5975 4y ago
  I think you are mistaking blustering arrogance for naivety, but I otherwise agree with you.
- Tryk 4y ago
  If everyone keeps operating under the "same BS" then things will never change.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 4y ago
  > they have to operate under the same BS everyone else does As a nonprofit and public archive/library they do have some special rights, which is why this isn't as clear cut as many think. These range from codified in law https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#108 https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#108 to US Copyright Office decisions like https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2021/ https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2021/ and precedent. If you did this you'd be sued into the ground and 100% lose. Now, I'm not saying the Archive will get away with what they did or that it was a good idea, just that there might be some non-obvious avenues.
999900000999 4y ago
I still don't understand what compelled IA to blatantly violate copyright law like that. From what I can tell, even buying a book and then digitally lending it out, isn't exactly a human right. Regardless, IA was doing that without issue for years. IA then decided they were going to "lend out"as many books as they wanted. To What exactly is surprising here ?
- conradfr 4y ago
  We were all a little crazy at the start of the pandemic.
mgdlbp 4y ago
I read on HN an insightful rationalization of IA's heeding of requests to hide content: Making data unavailable without protest - while continuing to silently collect it - minimizes controversy and potential blocking or censorship, a short-term sacrifice for its mission of giving longevity to internet content. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21012643 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21012643 In that context, NEL was quite a foolish thing to do. But wait, that's not its mission - https://archive.org/about https://archive.org/about explains how IA's mission of 'Universal Access to All Knowledge' and status as a library entail 'paying special attention to books'. That'd be the rationale for NEL, then?
Gleaming5975 4y ago
Personally, I'm thrilled to hear this. The Internet Archive has already made a choice to self censor material that they had previously made available. To be willing to censor some material, but playing "innocent" when it comes to being required to censor themselves in other ways is hypocritical at best.
Werewolf255 4y ago
Lots of folks in the comments acting like lawful actions, by their very nature of being lawful, are correct actions. Internet Archive took extraordinary measures during extraordinary times when these same four publishers could have done something similar. They should be nationalized, dismantled, and have their archives released into the public domain, as punishment for trying to hoard our collective knowledge to themselves.
- Nemo_bis 4y ago
  I assume that by "they" in your second sentence you mean the publishers. One relatively innocuous way to neutralize the hoarders of exclusive rights is a compulsory license. It was proposed in the context of the TRIPS waiver: https://www.communia-association.org/2021/03/22/communia-supports-the-wto-trips-waiver-for-covid-19/ https://www.communia-association.org/2021/03/22/communia-sup...
- the_only_law 4y ago
  > Lots of folks in the comments acting like lawful actions, by their very nature of being lawful, are correct action Ofc just wait for the case which involves some law they hate and watch the song change. I will agree with the thought, though, that picking a fight you can't win is probably dumb. I doubt the IA would become a martyr.
tenpies 4y ago
- eropple 4y ago
  Taylor Lorenz has a track record of some gross stuff. The Internet Archive regularly does not display archives of content that they've indexed (which also doesn't mean that it's been deleted!) when content creators ask them not to. A `robots.txt` file does for the Wayback Machine is asking the IA that, though in that case I don't know if it's indexed and not displayed; I would assume not, as it's a go-away to a crawler, but I also have seen Google crawl but not display robots'd content so I don't actually know. Both of these things can be true, and far-right media is doing its best to downplay the latter for culture-war points. I would say that I regret that you have fallen for the reactionary, conspiracist okeydoke--but I've looked at your comment history and I think you like it.
  - 13amxn13 4y ago
gojomo 4y ago
Some people here say they like the Internet Archive, and resent copyright maximalism, but wish IA would be more legally conservative around copyright law: "follow the law!" "ask permission!" "work through other libraries!" They may not understand that none of what they like about the Internet Archive would've been possible without a bold willingness to probe the boundaries of copyright law. If you'd asked any mainstream copyright law authority in the 1990s, they'd have likely said the entire Wayback Machine was illegal under the letter-of-the-law, and advised against even trying it. "Reckless!" Only by IA actually doing it – & demonstrating the indispensibility of such a historical record to academics, policymakers, culture, & the courts – were people's mental models gradually upgraded. Now, even with little change to statutory law, most see that the best interpretation of the various traditional categories, exceptions, & affordances of copyright law is the one that finds legal space for a Wayback Machine. Bulk-scanning books-still-in-copyright, even for private preservation/use? Was legally iffy when Google & IA started doing it; now better recognized as legitimate. Accepting user/collector uploads of live concerts? Storing, serving, & providing emulated environments for old still-in-copyright retail PC/game/arcade software? Bulk-archiving & replaying TV news broadcasts? All iffy when IA started doing them, becoming accepted as reasonable over time by the demonstration-of-utility. An Internet Archive that waited for legal clarity before starting such projects would still be waiting today – and we'd have neither the valuable projects, nor the accumulated experience/clarity, from the actual doing, about what is reasonable & beneficial.
- _ktx2 4y ago
  One of the things I dislike the most about Internet Archive is their relatively open attitude of flaunting privacy on purpose: http://blog.archive.org/2017/04/17/robots-txt-meant-for-search-engines-dont-work-well-for-web-archives/ http://blog.archive.org/2017/04/17/robots-txt-meant-for-sear... Do you know what system they replaced robots.txt with? Email, one that is filed as a DMCA request: https://medium.com/wednesday-genius/how-to-remove-your-website-from-the-internet-archive-2020-c4d89c147546 https://medium.com/wednesday-genius/how-to-remove-your-websi... https://jonathanwthomas.net/how-to-get-your-website-out-of-the-internet-archive-wayback-machine/ https://jonathanwthomas.net/how-to-get-your-website-out-of-t... Sometimes, it's probably good to not push the envelope without trying to establish consensus in good faith first.
bshanks 4y ago
Has there been any progress in software to allow individual unaffiliated volunteers to help make decentralized third-party backups of the Internet Archive's WWW Wayback machine data? My opinion is that it may be difficult to find enough volunteer storage to fit the entire Archive, but if we focus on prioritizing plaintext HTML, plus perhaps graphics included in web pages constrained to a size limit, we can do it.
nonbirithm 4y ago
The centralization of the IA should've got more attention sooner. I've worried that the Wayback Machine will only remain up for another couple of years as a result of the IA's actions. It has saved me countless times in the past, but it's sadly a one-of-a-kind, fragile trove of data in the hands of an organization that didn't keep their ideals separate from reality. I feel they should be taking steps immediately to ensure that at least the data of the Wayback Archive will outlive the whims of IA-the-organization in the coming decades/centuries, before it's too late. There's probably a lot of people willing to help out with such a replication task.
- sha-3 4y ago
  The only comparable public alternative to the Wayback Machine is archive.today. But as far as I know, no one knows who operates or funds the project. It could go down anytime and no one can do anything about it.
solarkraft 4y ago
I'm torn about this. I don't want my money going to silly lawsuits, I want it to go towards archiving important cultural goods. Copyright infringement is exactly what makes it possible to provide me with that collection of Windows 7 UI sounds and similar things, but I don't know about books. There are already people archiving books and providing them to people for free, so I think this is not a role the Internet Archive needs to fill. Save the money and fight battles that matter more ...
- freeflight 4y ago
  > I'm torn about this. I don't want my money going to silly lawsuits, I want it to go towards archiving important cultural goods. We live in a world where one corporation can singlehandedly change copyright for the worse for the majority of humanity, where copyright is actively being used and abused, not just for profit maximation but also for the suppression of information. In such a world lawsuits sadly are a part of enabling to do what IA is trying to do; Set precedents for what doesn't fall under copyright, fighting for interests that are not 100% based on profits.
thorw73m 4y ago
Slightly off topic. What is the tech stack and architecture of "archive.org". How do they manage such huge storage. How do they forecast and how much does it cost per year to manage existing storage ? I could not find any links?
- marapuru 4y ago
  I don't have the answer either. But you might be able to find some traces in their blog: http://blog.archive.org/category/technical/ http://blog.archive.org/category/technical/
freeflight 4y ago
IA being sued out of existence would fit perfectly into this dumpster fire of a timeline. Right now it's one of the few easily accessible places on the web that haven't completely caved in to copyright and moderation censorship, the only way to keep web "news media" somewhat accountable by having an actual historical record one can point at. Once that's gone, misinformation serving pro-US narratives will go into complete overdrive and the web will be dead [0] for good. [0] https://staltz.com/the-web-began-dying-in-2014-heres-how.html https://staltz.com/the-web-began-dying-in-2014-heres-how.htm...
danbmil99 4y ago
related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiQ_Labs_v._LinkedIn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiQ_Labs_v._LinkedIn
drallison 4y ago
Archive.org (the Internet Archive) is doing important, critical work to build and maintain an archival copy of everything. If you have not used the system, spend some time and discover the gems that are included in its collection. https://archive.org https://archive.org Offer suggestions and get involved. On July 15th I attended the Archive Open House and spoke with Brewster about the ambitious plans through the coming year and the next few decades. There is a lot that needs to be done. The Archive needs your moral, political, and monetary support. To donate: https://archive.org/donate https://archive.org/donate .

746 points by antiverse 4y ago

capableweb 4y ago

I love the Internet Archive and frequently donate to them (2 times so far this year). What I'd love to see improved is the ability to be less "fragile". Currently it's all located in the US and they have a huge focus on the US, both technically and politically. But why not try to replicate it all over the world? There seems to have been some smaller efforts inside the Internet Archive to make it more decentralized, but it feels like it should be a much bigger focus on it.

daniel_reetz 4y ago
It might not be widely known, but they have in the past had copies of the Archive in Alexandria and other locations. From my brief time there, I know that issues like these are of great concern to the Archive.
- hcs 4y ago
  I recall they'd announced the intention to set up a mirror in Canada, did that ever materialize? https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/11/worried-about-us-surveillance-internet-archive-announces-mirror-in-canada/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/11/worried-about-us...
  - capableweb 4y ago
    They opened a new headquarters in Vancouver recently: - https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/the-internet-archive-opens-headquarters-meeting-space-for-the-tech-world https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/the-internet-archiv... (Jun 16, 2022) - On HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31774608 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31774608 (219 points | 64 comments) But it seems like a strange location. Why not really branch out and meet the world instead of just sticking around North America?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
lwswl 4y ago
It would be harder to focus all the blame, and the hand of the law, on a single institution. Currently, only the IA will fall, and anyone who benefited from their seeming folly will have no issues.
jazzyjackson 4y ago
is there any group lobbying for the abolishment of all copyright? I'd like to donate to them.
- 4y ago

jacquesm 4y ago

They did a pretty dumb thing and that's me being a supporter. I really wished they had thought a little longer before pulling that particular stunt.

gjs278 4y ago
samwillis 4y ago
Exactly, they should have reached out to the closed public libraries and come to an agreement where they lent out digital copies 1:1 of copies owned by closed libraries. It would have been an incredible initiative that could have become sustainable well past the pandemic.
- wmf 4y ago
  they lent out digital copies 1:1 of copies owned by closed libraries That would probably have triggered the same lawsuit. You cannot rent digital copies of physical works no matter how much sense it makes.
  - Rebelgecko 4y ago
    IIRC, IA had already been doing that for years. This lawsuit is happening because they stopped limiting digital loans to the number of physical copies IA and their partners had on hand
  - daniel_reetz 4y ago
    This is not as legally clear cut as you make it seem. There's plenty of legal discussion around the issue of format shifting books.
  - Beldin 4y ago
    It possibly could have, but the circumstances would be significantly different. They did not impose any restrictions this time. If they hadc dinner it as GP suggests, they could easily argue that they made a fair and honest effort to not let closures in the physical world affect library availability. This probably still runs counter to copyright law. Were thr IA to lose such a case, the reasonableness of the approach in the face of such extraordinary circumstances would provide ample impetus to revaluate copyright legislation. Unlike the current situation. Basically: No one likes throwing the book at the heroes; if the bad guys force that, society may start rewriting the book.

wmf 4y ago

It's been discussed extensively: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23379775 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23379775 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23998115 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23998115 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23691297 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23691297 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23485182 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23485182 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23391662 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23391662

dang 4y ago
Thanks! Macroexpanded: Activists rally to save Internet Archive as lawsuit threatens site (2020) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31703394 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31703394 - June 2022 (32 comments) Help preserve the internet with Archiveteam's warrior - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30524842 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30524842 - March 2022 (51 comments) Internet Archive responds to publishers’ lawsuit - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23998115 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23998115 - July 2020 (348 comments) My thoughts in response to the lawsuit against the Internet Archive - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23931183 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23931183 - July 2020 (232 comments) EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23691297 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23691297 - June 2020 (263 comments) Activists rally to save Internet Archive as lawsuit threatens site - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23485182 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23485182 - June 2020 (393 comments) Lawsuit over online book lending could bankrupt Internet Archive - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23391662 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23391662 - June 2020 (260 comments) Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23379775 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23379775 - June 2020 (346 comments) Internet Archive responds: Why we released the National Emergency Library - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22731472 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22731472 - March 2020 (145 comments) Internet Archive’s National Emergency Library Harms Authors - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22716923 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22716923 - March 2020 (48 comments)

COGlory 4y ago

So...they didn't think the law should apply so they just decided to ignore it? What were they expecting? How can they possibly expect to win this lawsuit? I hate copyright with all my soul but this is just stupid. You can't just decide to take the law into your own hand. This is just a waste of money and effort.

bencollier49 4y ago
To be honest I love their computer games archive, but it boggles my mind that it's allowed to exist.
- hungryforcodes 4y ago
  Which is where the thinking that lead to this lawsuit begins. Almost all those games are abandonware and or over 20 years old. Normal copyright should not apply there.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - bencollier49 4y ago
    Well the law is written that way, and I don't think it's completely unreasonable (at least to the life of the originator). Just seems like the IA have been bold as brass here. Also, the term "abandonware" is hugely overused. There are tonnes of shareware premium versions on there where it's super easy to contact the creators. I've never failed to do so.
metadat 4y ago
The mission of preserving human culture is far more important than respecting rent-seeking copyright holders. At the end of the day, The Internet Archive has good intentions and is morally in the right. The time has come to consider changing the laws to allow for truly fair use, especially for physical items scanned to digital (e.g. books), old video games, and more. It's about selecting for the common good over the extremely low-value proposition of helping rent-seekers preserve an infinite zero-effort stream of income. TIA is one of the best things to emerge from tech, all thanks to the tireless and complete dedication of the founder: Brewster Kahle. I don't know if they still do it, but pre-pandemic they offered tours of their HQ in San Francisco. It was really cool to meet the team and see their setup, and an amazing opportunity to meet Brewster and hear the conviction in his voice as he described his vision for The Internet Archive. It's a very special thing.. imagine if it didn't exist? I am feeling tears coming just considering such a possible reality.

TekMol 4y ago

I never understood how the IA can get away with copying all those websites and all their content as if copyright did not exist. Can anybody enlighten me how they have not been sued into oblivion and sit in prison already?

samwillis 4y ago
If you ask to have something removed, or to exclude your site, they do. They comply with robots.txt, I believe even retrospectively. I think they try hard NOT to be sued. They are also not making a profit from “copied” content, and so damages would be small. Particularly as they would immediately remove the problematic content.
- ghaff 4y ago
  Basically (until now), they make themselves as reasonable and as little of a target as they can.
perth 4y ago
They have a few special permissions from the US federal government which certainly doesn’t hurt when it comes to archival efforts
rwmj 4y ago
Browsers copy and store websites as part of their normal functioning. If you didn't want your website to be copied and stored then maybe it was better not to put it up in the first place? Anyway the IA will remove everything with a very simple, automated text file placed in the root directory.
- BeetleB 4y ago
  Browsers can copy and store, but republishing is a totally different matter.
- throwk8s 4y ago
  > Anyway the IA will remove everything with a very simple, automated text file placed in the root directory. What if the site is simply gone, or now belongs to someone else who is not the owner of the archived content?

Rebelgecko 4y ago

This is pretty much why I stopped donating to them, not like they'll miss the sporadic $50 they'd get from me. Getting sued is a pretty obvious result of their decision to ignore copyright laws. If they didn't realize that they'd be sued then they're hopelessly shortsighted (there's no "emergency" exemption to copyright laws, even if you can make the argument that morally there should be). If they did know that they'd be sued, the message they're projecting is that they have enough leftover money to burn that they can branch out from their core competencies and try their hand at legal activism.

themitigating 4y ago
There are exceptions to copyright law: https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html Maybe they're trying to set a legal precedent, which sounds great. I don't know why but I read your comment in such a negative tone. "Rebel"gecko indeed
- Rebelgecko 4y ago
  I don't really see how the ongoing pandemic would change the results of the fair use 4 factors test. I think the moral arguments in favor of IA's unrestricted lending are much more compelling than the legal ones (ofc I'm not a copyright law expert so I could be totally wrong). Part of being a good rebel is to choose your battles wisely :) I think IA does a good job at that when they distribute abandonware or public domain materials. Trying to share unlimited copies of Harry Potter seems much more quixotic.
capableweb 4y ago
> they can branch out from their core competencies Being a library is their core mission and fighting what they are fighting now is one of the reasons I keep donating to them. I want them to be able to offer a digital library all over the world, this for me is the Internet Archive.
dghlsakjg 4y ago
It doesn't seem as cut and dry as you make it seem. Archival institutions are allowed to make digitized copies of legitimately owned works, and to allow access to that copy on their own "premises". In the case of an organization like the internet archive which does not have physical premises, would you accept the argument that their 'premises' is the internet? The question that they want answered is: where exactly is the line between looking at a scanned/microfiched/non-original archival copy of copyrighted material at the library, and viewing that same material over a network connection. They weren't just handing out unlimited copies of books. They were distributing owned copies of books for exclusive temporary use. The method of delivery is different, but the end result is the same as checking a book out and leaving the library. Just because public libraries signed shitty deals to get access to lending ebook licenses doesn't mean that the right to lend archival material over the network doesn't exist. I would love for the courts to establish a first-sale doctrine that applies to digitized books, or that allows shifting a books format (buying a physical copy of a book and converting it to digital)

lwswl 4y ago

I believe there are certain large corporations(far larger then Harper Collins et al.) which would benefit from an enlarging of the domain of fair use around now. Those pockets are large, and the display of the dollar does more to sway Judges than any real interpretation of the law. It is safe to say that they will succeed in their (seemingly useless) endeavor.

twblalock 4y ago
> I believe there are certain large corporations(far larger then Harper Collins et al.) which would benefit from an enlarging of the domain of fair use around now. Who are those corporations and how would they benefit?
- wmf 4y ago
  Tech is far larger than publishing and there's potentially more money to be made organizing/consuming the world's information than in owning it. Some people have been pointing this out for 20 years.
  - jl6 4y ago
    For example, Apple could buy News Corporation (the parent company of HarperCollins, one of the litigants) with a single quarter’s profits. Not revenue, profit. News Corporation enterprise value: $11bn Apple quarterly profit: $25bn
    - twblalock 4y ago
      Yes but why should Apple do that? How would Apple benefit from doing that?
      - jl6 4y ago
        They could use all the books as a loss leader for the Apple ecosystem, similar to how Google Maps spends billions on data that is made available for “free”.

antiverse 4y ago

It's disappointing to hear, with the number of people here claiming how IA has run afoul of the copyright law, that it's an open-and-shut case and there is nothing more to discuss. I feel like the air of the hacker spirit on the website is greatly diminished when we take an ice-cold approach to a difficult problem like this. I for one commend them for doing a noble thing in a very turbulent time. We didn't know how the pandemic was going to play out early on in 2020 and they went ahead to help out in any way they could. Perhaps the US Federal Government will give them some kind of an exemption (if such a thing exists). I'm sure they can find a case where their action is justified in the eyes of law.

PragmaticPulp 4y ago
> I feel like the air of the hacker spirit on the website is greatly diminished when we take an ice-cold approach to a difficult problem like this. That “hacker spirit” has put years of extremely valuable internet archives at risk for an extremely insignificant gain, all due to a legal issue that anyone could see coming from a mile away. Hacker spirit and playing fast and loose with the rules might fly when you’re a fresh startup with nothing to lose. It’s just plain irresponsible when you start putting an established business at risk in ways that were trivially avoided.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  Indeed. They could have easily isolated themselves from the fall out if they wanted to make a point about the law.
wmf 4y ago
I don't consider it an open-and-shut case, but they're putting the archive at risk and they may not have enough money to win and I don't want to donate money to their lawyers. I wouldn't have a problem if they spun off a separate organization for this so it didn't threaten the archive.

FpUser 4y ago

Time to change the law. It does not benefit people in this particular case.

kup0 4y ago

I agree with the Internet Archive on philosophical/ideological grounds and support their actions overall... _However_, they have to operate under the same BS everyone else does, so it seems naïve for them to take reckless actions that could put them in this position

Gleaming5975 4y ago
I think you are mistaking blustering arrogance for naivety, but I otherwise agree with you.
Tryk 4y ago
If everyone keeps operating under the "same BS" then things will never change.
tgsovlerkhgsel 4y ago
> they have to operate under the same BS everyone else does As a nonprofit and public archive/library they do have some special rights, which is why this isn't as clear cut as many think. These range from codified in law https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#108 https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#108 to US Copyright Office decisions like https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2021/ https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2021/ and precedent. If you did this you'd be sued into the ground and 100% lose. Now, I'm not saying the Archive will get away with what they did or that it was a good idea, just that there might be some non-obvious avenues.

999900000999 4y ago

I still don't understand what compelled IA to blatantly violate copyright law like that. From what I can tell, even buying a book and then digitally lending it out, isn't exactly a human right. Regardless, IA was doing that without issue for years. IA then decided they were going to "lend out"as many books as they wanted. To What exactly is surprising here ?

conradfr 4y ago
We were all a little crazy at the start of the pandemic.

mgdlbp 4y ago

I read on HN an insightful rationalization of IA's heeding of requests to hide content: Making data unavailable without protest - while continuing to silently collect it - minimizes controversy and potential blocking or censorship, a short-term sacrifice for its mission of giving longevity to internet content. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21012643 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21012643 In that context, NEL was quite a foolish thing to do. But wait, that's not its mission - https://archive.org/about https://archive.org/about explains how IA's mission of 'Universal Access to All Knowledge' and status as a library entail 'paying special attention to books'. That'd be the rationale for NEL, then?

Gleaming5975 4y ago

Personally, I'm thrilled to hear this. The Internet Archive has already made a choice to self censor material that they had previously made available. To be willing to censor some material, but playing "innocent" when it comes to being required to censor themselves in other ways is hypocritical at best.

Werewolf255 4y ago

Lots of folks in the comments acting like lawful actions, by their very nature of being lawful, are correct actions. Internet Archive took extraordinary measures during extraordinary times when these same four publishers could have done something similar. They should be nationalized, dismantled, and have their archives released into the public domain, as punishment for trying to hoard our collective knowledge to themselves.

Nemo_bis 4y ago
I assume that by "they" in your second sentence you mean the publishers. One relatively innocuous way to neutralize the hoarders of exclusive rights is a compulsory license. It was proposed in the context of the TRIPS waiver: https://www.communia-association.org/2021/03/22/communia-supports-the-wto-trips-waiver-for-covid-19/ https://www.communia-association.org/2021/03/22/communia-sup...
the_only_law 4y ago
> Lots of folks in the comments acting like lawful actions, by their very nature of being lawful, are correct action Ofc just wait for the case which involves some law they hate and watch the song change. I will agree with the thought, though, that picking a fight you can't win is probably dumb. I doubt the IA would become a martyr.

tenpies 4y ago

eropple 4y ago
Taylor Lorenz has a track record of some gross stuff. The Internet Archive regularly does not display archives of content that they've indexed (which also doesn't mean that it's been deleted!) when content creators ask them not to. A `robots.txt` file does for the Wayback Machine is asking the IA that, though in that case I don't know if it's indexed and not displayed; I would assume not, as it's a go-away to a crawler, but I also have seen Google crawl but not display robots'd content so I don't actually know. Both of these things can be true, and far-right media is doing its best to downplay the latter for culture-war points. I would say that I regret that you have fallen for the reactionary, conspiracist okeydoke--but I've looked at your comment history and I think you like it.
- 13amxn13 4y ago

gojomo 4y ago

Some people here say they like the Internet Archive, and resent copyright maximalism, but wish IA would be more legally conservative around copyright law: "follow the law!" "ask permission!" "work through other libraries!" They may not understand that none of what they like about the Internet Archive would've been possible without a bold willingness to probe the boundaries of copyright law. If you'd asked any mainstream copyright law authority in the 1990s, they'd have likely said the entire Wayback Machine was illegal under the letter-of-the-law, and advised against even trying it. "Reckless!" Only by IA actually doing it – & demonstrating the indispensibility of such a historical record to academics, policymakers, culture, & the courts – were people's mental models gradually upgraded. Now, even with little change to statutory law, most see that the best interpretation of the various traditional categories, exceptions, & affordances of copyright law is the one that finds legal space for a Wayback Machine. Bulk-scanning books-still-in-copyright, even for private preservation/use? Was legally iffy when Google & IA started doing it; now better recognized as legitimate. Accepting user/collector uploads of live concerts? Storing, serving, & providing emulated environments for old still-in-copyright retail PC/game/arcade software? Bulk-archiving & replaying TV news broadcasts? All iffy when IA started doing them, becoming accepted as reasonable over time by the demonstration-of-utility. An Internet Archive that waited for legal clarity before starting such projects would still be waiting today – and we'd have neither the valuable projects, nor the accumulated experience/clarity, from the actual doing, about what is reasonable & beneficial.

_ktx2 4y ago
One of the things I dislike the most about Internet Archive is their relatively open attitude of flaunting privacy on purpose: http://blog.archive.org/2017/04/17/robots-txt-meant-for-search-engines-dont-work-well-for-web-archives/ http://blog.archive.org/2017/04/17/robots-txt-meant-for-sear... Do you know what system they replaced robots.txt with? Email, one that is filed as a DMCA request: https://medium.com/wednesday-genius/how-to-remove-your-website-from-the-internet-archive-2020-c4d89c147546 https://medium.com/wednesday-genius/how-to-remove-your-websi... https://jonathanwthomas.net/how-to-get-your-website-out-of-the-internet-archive-wayback-machine/ https://jonathanwthomas.net/how-to-get-your-website-out-of-t... Sometimes, it's probably good to not push the envelope without trying to establish consensus in good faith first.

bshanks 4y ago

Has there been any progress in software to allow individual unaffiliated volunteers to help make decentralized third-party backups of the Internet Archive's WWW Wayback machine data? My opinion is that it may be difficult to find enough volunteer storage to fit the entire Archive, but if we focus on prioritizing plaintext HTML, plus perhaps graphics included in web pages constrained to a size limit, we can do it.

nonbirithm 4y ago

The centralization of the IA should've got more attention sooner. I've worried that the Wayback Machine will only remain up for another couple of years as a result of the IA's actions. It has saved me countless times in the past, but it's sadly a one-of-a-kind, fragile trove of data in the hands of an organization that didn't keep their ideals separate from reality. I feel they should be taking steps immediately to ensure that at least the data of the Wayback Archive will outlive the whims of IA-the-organization in the coming decades/centuries, before it's too late. There's probably a lot of people willing to help out with such a replication task.

sha-3 4y ago
The only comparable public alternative to the Wayback Machine is archive.today. But as far as I know, no one knows who operates or funds the project. It could go down anytime and no one can do anything about it.

solarkraft 4y ago

I'm torn about this. I don't want my money going to silly lawsuits, I want it to go towards archiving important cultural goods. Copyright infringement is exactly what makes it possible to provide me with that collection of Windows 7 UI sounds and similar things, but I don't know about books. There are already people archiving books and providing them to people for free, so I think this is not a role the Internet Archive needs to fill. Save the money and fight battles that matter more ...

freeflight 4y ago
> I'm torn about this. I don't want my money going to silly lawsuits, I want it to go towards archiving important cultural goods. We live in a world where one corporation can singlehandedly change copyright for the worse for the majority of humanity, where copyright is actively being used and abused, not just for profit maximation but also for the suppression of information. In such a world lawsuits sadly are a part of enabling to do what IA is trying to do; Set precedents for what doesn't fall under copyright, fighting for interests that are not 100% based on profits.

thorw73m 4y ago

Slightly off topic. What is the tech stack and architecture of "archive.org". How do they manage such huge storage. How do they forecast and how much does it cost per year to manage existing storage ? I could not find any links?

marapuru 4y ago
I don't have the answer either. But you might be able to find some traces in their blog: http://blog.archive.org/category/technical/ http://blog.archive.org/category/technical/

freeflight 4y ago

IA being sued out of existence would fit perfectly into this dumpster fire of a timeline. Right now it's one of the few easily accessible places on the web that haven't completely caved in to copyright and moderation censorship, the only way to keep web "news media" somewhat accountable by having an actual historical record one can point at. Once that's gone, misinformation serving pro-US narratives will go into complete overdrive and the web will be dead [0] for good. [0] https://staltz.com/the-web-began-dying-in-2014-heres-how.html https://staltz.com/the-web-began-dying-in-2014-heres-how.htm...

danbmil99 4y ago

related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiQ_Labs_v._LinkedIn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiQ_Labs_v._LinkedIn

drallison 4y ago

Archive.org (the Internet Archive) is doing important, critical work to build and maintain an archival copy of everything. If you have not used the system, spend some time and discover the gems that are included in its collection. https://archive.org https://archive.org Offer suggestions and get involved. On July 15th I attended the Archive Open House and spoke with Brewster about the ambitious plans through the coming year and the next few decades. There is a lot that needs to be done. The Archive needs your moral, political, and monetary support. To donate: https://archive.org/donate https://archive.org/donate .