3 ms·
The original idea was to only lend out digital copies that are backed by a physical copy, so if challenged the Internet Archive could reasonably argue that they
by jsheard 4y ago
The original idea was to only lend out digital copies that are backed by a physical copy, so if challenged the Internet Archive could reasonably argue that they're protected under the same laws that physical libraries are, but when the pandemic kicked off IA launched an "emergency library" which waived the lending limits so any number of copies could be lent out regardless of how many physical copies they have.
My assumption is that publishers probably weren't happy about the original model but it was legally murky enough that they didn't pursue it for risk of losing and setting the wrong (from their perspective) precedent, but the emergency library made for an extremely easy case against IA.
- boomboomsubban 4y agoThe case dealt with the former. This article is the judge's ruling, the National Emergency Library is not mentioned.
- teraflop 4y agoThe full ruling does mention it, albeit briefly: > IA also argues that it made fair use of the Publishers’ copyrights during the National Emergency Library. The analysis above applies even more forcefully to the NEL, during which IA amplified its unauthorized lending of ebook versions of the Works in Suit by lifting the one-to-one owned-to-loaned ratio. IA’s defense of fair use with respect to the NEL therefore also fails.
- boomboomsubban 4y agoMy mistake, though that line emphasizes that the NEL is barely relevant to the decision.
- bawolff 4y agoNonetheless, its still the sort of thing that can colour opinion. If you want to change things with a precedent, it is usually best to try and be a perfect angel in every other way possible.