3 ms·

If I understand correctly, the linked article is grossly misleading. Yes, it could well be that publishers would like to kill libraries and controlled digital

If I understand correctly, the linked article is grossly misleading. Yes, it could well be that publishers would like to kill libraries and controlled digital lending—but AFAICT this suit[1] is about UNCONTROLLED digital lending: during the pandemic, archive.org began lending out more copies of eBooks than they actually owned, on the (IMHO morally justified but legally tenuous) basis that, because libraries were closed, it was reasonable to allow people to access electronically books that they were unable to access physically. I think it would be great if the law allowed that, but I'm fairly sure it doesn't, so while I think the publishers are being jerks here, they seem to be legally in the right, and while I'm concerned that the Internet Archive's liability will be devastating to that organisation's future (losing web.archive.org would be an abhorrent consequence), claiming that this suit is about CDL or trying to shut down libraries seems to be rather disingenuous. [1] https://publishers.org/news/publishers-file-suit-against-internet-archive-for-systematic-mass-scanning-and-distribution-of-literary-works/ https://publishers.org/news/publishers-file-suit-against-int...

jcranmer 4y ago
> AFAICT this suit[1] is about UNCONTROLLED digital lending Yes and no. The publishers didn't file a lawsuit until the policy of uncontrolled digital lending was temporarily enacted, but the lawsuit is targeting controlled digital lending as well. You can read the complaint itself to find this out, helpfully linked by the plaintiffs themselves in their own press release about the lawsuit. Were it only about uncontrolled digital lending, the suit would have been tossed as moot two years ago.
- misnome 4y ago
  > Were it only about uncontrolled digital lending, the suit would have been tossed as moot two years ago. You don't think that publishers would have had any case at all against deliberate mass-copyright infringement under flimsy pretences? I don't think "we stopped doing it when ordered to by a court" is much of a sign of good faith...
boomboomsubban 4y ago
The lawsuit is unquestionably about controlled digital lending. It was filed after the start of the National Emergency Library, but all the contents of the lawsuit are attacking CDL with the pandemic actions only a way of showing the Internet Archive is an organization that can't be trusted. You can see this in the filed paperwork, where amusingly they also attack the IA by saying they've occasionally incorrectly labeled things as in the public domain, which was clearly done maliciously. If this lawsuit was only seeking damages over the National Emergency Library, nobody would be writing stories about it. And publishers were openly hostile to CDL before the pandemic, you could see them preparing for this lawsuit in 2019.
- misnome 4y ago
  > all the contents of the lawsuit are attacking CDL with the pandemic actions only a way of showing the Internet Archive is an organization that can't be trusted. I mean, that seems like a reasonable position given the circumstances? I'm sure if a physical library started their own book printing business and handing out unlimited copies of books that they had bought one of, that the publishers would be equally pissed, and not stop being pissed if the library said "oopsie I got caught I've stopped doing it now".
  - boomboomsubban 4y ago
    I don't think it's reasonable to use actions taken in an unprecedented situation as indicators of how they act in normal circumstances. To use your example, if a library started publishing illegal copies of some kind of emergency materials while their town faced a major flood, I wouldn't think the library was trying to replace publishers. Circumstances matter, and while you can argue the IA overstepped it's bounds I don't think that shows they can't be trusted.

jcranmer 4y ago

> AFAICT this suit[1] is about UNCONTROLLED digital lending Yes and no. The publishers didn't file a lawsuit until the policy of uncontrolled digital lending was temporarily enacted, but the lawsuit is targeting controlled digital lending as well. You can read the complaint itself to find this out, helpfully linked by the plaintiffs themselves in their own press release about the lawsuit. Were it only about uncontrolled digital lending, the suit would have been tossed as moot two years ago.

misnome 4y ago
> Were it only about uncontrolled digital lending, the suit would have been tossed as moot two years ago. You don't think that publishers would have had any case at all against deliberate mass-copyright infringement under flimsy pretences? I don't think "we stopped doing it when ordered to by a court" is much of a sign of good faith...

boomboomsubban 4y ago

The lawsuit is unquestionably about controlled digital lending. It was filed after the start of the National Emergency Library, but all the contents of the lawsuit are attacking CDL with the pandemic actions only a way of showing the Internet Archive is an organization that can't be trusted. You can see this in the filed paperwork, where amusingly they also attack the IA by saying they've occasionally incorrectly labeled things as in the public domain, which was clearly done maliciously. If this lawsuit was only seeking damages over the National Emergency Library, nobody would be writing stories about it. And publishers were openly hostile to CDL before the pandemic, you could see them preparing for this lawsuit in 2019.

misnome 4y ago
> all the contents of the lawsuit are attacking CDL with the pandemic actions only a way of showing the Internet Archive is an organization that can't be trusted. I mean, that seems like a reasonable position given the circumstances? I'm sure if a physical library started their own book printing business and handing out unlimited copies of books that they had bought one of, that the publishers would be equally pissed, and not stop being pissed if the library said "oopsie I got caught I've stopped doing it now".
- boomboomsubban 4y ago
  I don't think it's reasonable to use actions taken in an unprecedented situation as indicators of how they act in normal circumstances. To use your example, if a library started publishing illegal copies of some kind of emergency materials while their town faced a major flood, I wouldn't think the library was trying to replace publishers. Circumstances matter, and while you can argue the IA overstepped it's bounds I don't think that shows they can't be trusted.