3 ms·

> against our library and the longstanding library practice of controlled digital lending Isn’t this… deliberately misleading? As I understand it there wasn’t

> against our library and the longstanding library practice of controlled digital lending Isn’t this… deliberately misleading? As I understand it there wasn’t really a problem until they decided to embark on “Uncontrolled” digital lending.

duxup 4y ago
I agree. I don’t understand why they took this risk. The internet archive is a great resource, why did they pick this digital lending hill to die / risk all that on? It seems irresponsible.
- misnome 4y ago
  Lying about it comes across badly. As though they think their best chance of success is to pretend it’s about something else. I support the IA mission generally but this came across as exceedingly dumb when they did it. Maybe they are right and this existential gamble will work and it’ll clarify an area of ambiguity that means it was legal - I’d love to be wrong. But I’m not placing any bets on that.
  - duxup 4y ago
    > Lying about it comes across badly. I agree 100%. It makes me wonder about the leadership that they made this decision, are going through with this legal situation, and keep trying to push this story.
- ghaff 4y ago
  The IA has basically existed because they did stuff that, for the most part, publishers/companies didn't care about or even secretly appreciated. Storing old web pages, magazines, millions of bits of other ephemera that would otherwise only have existed on musty library shelves if at all. And they would even take something down if some owner wanted some bit of history to disappear. The idea that because COVID, in a world with the Internet along with also massive quantities of public domain works on Gutenberg and elsewhere, the IA just had to triple down on digital lending just makes no sense.
  - stametseater 4y ago
    They're not in trouble for sharing books that were available in the public domain.
- stametseater 4y ago
  > I don’t understand why they took this risk. They, and many other people around the world, got it into their minds that Covid had suspended all normal rules and left them free to do whatever they thought to be a reasonable response to the circumstance, which in this case was "the normal libraries are closed so we'll give out free access to all our books."
  - duxup 4y ago
    It’s so strange as my library has ebooks. The libraries were still available in pretty much the same way.
    - monetus 4y ago
      Does your library restrict the number of copies they "loan" out? I have waited for 6 months to check out an audiobook, and sometimes a few months for other less popular ebooks where they only have 1 license.
      - duxup 4y ago
        They do, but I've never had a long wait. Maybe it depends on the book / I haven't wanted a high demand book and just not run into it.
    - stametseater 4y ago
      My library has ebooks too, but the collection is abysmal compared to Archive.org. Archive.org digitized a ton of books that you'll be very hard pressed to find ebooks of for sale let alone in public libraries (except Library Genesis, Z-Lib, etc.) Archive.org's error wasn't in believing that their act would be useful. The error was in their belief that laws were effectively suspended "because Covid".
      - duxup 4y ago
        Yeah I got no problem with them being an elibrary. I agree 100% the "because covid" thing was just dumb.
boomboomsubban 4y ago
No, it is not misleading. Almost all of the lawsuit is about controlled digital lending, with the COVID relaxing being an example of the things people could do while managing a CDL system. And the publishers were already objecting to CDL before COVID. The end goal for the publishers is definitely the removal of CDL, not punishing the IA for the pandemic actions.
sp332 4y ago
They're arguing that the IA's library isn't even a library.

duxup 4y ago

I agree. I don’t understand why they took this risk. The internet archive is a great resource, why did they pick this digital lending hill to die / risk all that on? It seems irresponsible.

misnome 4y ago
Lying about it comes across badly. As though they think their best chance of success is to pretend it’s about something else. I support the IA mission generally but this came across as exceedingly dumb when they did it. Maybe they are right and this existential gamble will work and it’ll clarify an area of ambiguity that means it was legal - I’d love to be wrong. But I’m not placing any bets on that.
- duxup 4y ago
  > Lying about it comes across badly. I agree 100%. It makes me wonder about the leadership that they made this decision, are going through with this legal situation, and keep trying to push this story.
ghaff 4y ago
The IA has basically existed because they did stuff that, for the most part, publishers/companies didn't care about or even secretly appreciated. Storing old web pages, magazines, millions of bits of other ephemera that would otherwise only have existed on musty library shelves if at all. And they would even take something down if some owner wanted some bit of history to disappear. The idea that because COVID, in a world with the Internet along with also massive quantities of public domain works on Gutenberg and elsewhere, the IA just had to triple down on digital lending just makes no sense.
- stametseater 4y ago
  They're not in trouble for sharing books that were available in the public domain.
stametseater 4y ago
> I don’t understand why they took this risk. They, and many other people around the world, got it into their minds that Covid had suspended all normal rules and left them free to do whatever they thought to be a reasonable response to the circumstance, which in this case was "the normal libraries are closed so we'll give out free access to all our books."
- duxup 4y ago
  It’s so strange as my library has ebooks. The libraries were still available in pretty much the same way.
  - monetus 4y ago
    Does your library restrict the number of copies they "loan" out? I have waited for 6 months to check out an audiobook, and sometimes a few months for other less popular ebooks where they only have 1 license.
    - duxup 4y ago
      They do, but I've never had a long wait. Maybe it depends on the book / I haven't wanted a high demand book and just not run into it.
  - stametseater 4y ago
    My library has ebooks too, but the collection is abysmal compared to Archive.org. Archive.org digitized a ton of books that you'll be very hard pressed to find ebooks of for sale let alone in public libraries (except Library Genesis, Z-Lib, etc.) Archive.org's error wasn't in believing that their act would be useful. The error was in their belief that laws were effectively suspended "because Covid".
    - duxup 4y ago
      Yeah I got no problem with them being an elibrary. I agree 100% the "because covid" thing was just dumb.

boomboomsubban 4y ago

No, it is not misleading. Almost all of the lawsuit is about controlled digital lending, with the COVID relaxing being an example of the things people could do while managing a CDL system. And the publishers were already objecting to CDL before COVID. The end goal for the publishers is definitely the removal of CDL, not punishing the IA for the pandemic actions.

sp332 4y ago

They're arguing that the IA's library isn't even a library.