7 ms·

Our fight is far from over

192 points by app4soft 3y ago

app4soft 3y ago
Post on Mastodon:[0] > We submitted a letter to the court today in the ongoing lawsuit against our library. We’re fighting for the rights of libraries to use their print collections in the digital age [0] https://mastodon.archive.org/@internetarchive/110872318293638005 https://mastodon.archive.org/@internetarchive/11087231829363...
uptie 3y ago
Error getting a database connection. This link was posted 7 minutes ago. Hmnn... sounds like their fight is definitely ongoing
- totetsu 3y ago
  http://archive.today/2023.08.12-020044/https://blog.archive.org/2023/08/11/our-fight-is-far-from-over/ http://archive.today/2023.08.12-020044/https://blog.archive....
Nas808 3y ago
This is about the "National Emergency Library" they launched during the peak of the COVID pandemic? I think they had good intentions, but the legality around it was definitely questionable from the start.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- mod50ack 3y ago
  Yes, in part. But it's also about their online lending program wholesale.
- boomboomsubban 3y ago
  No, this is about controlled digital lending as a whole. The ruling issued struck down all CDL, and only mentioned the National Emergency Library to say that it was also illegal as CDL was illegal.
- deely3 3y ago
  > legality around it was definitely questionable from the start. Can I cite old argument that "If someone invents book libraries now, they will be completely illegal."?
throwaway2990 3y ago
[flagged]
- conception 3y ago
  https://time.com/6211350/public-libraries-book-bans/ https://time.com/6211350/public-libraries-book-bans/ https://ilovelibraries.org/article/u-s-book-challenges-update-august-11-edition/ https://ilovelibraries.org/article/u-s-book-challenges-updat... Etc
- cristoperb 3y ago
  Here's a press release from the ALA on the recent increase in book challenges: https://www.ala.org/news/press-releases/2022/09/ala-releases-preliminary-data-2022-book-bans https://www.ala.org/news/press-releases/2022/09/ala-releases... > Between January 1 and August 31, 2022, ALA documented 681 attempts to ban or restrict library resources, and 1,651 unique titles were targeted. In 2021, ALA reported 729 attempts to censor library resources, targeting 1,597 books, which represented the highest number of attempted book bans since ALA began compiling these lists more than 20 years ago.
  - throwaway2990 3y ago
    Thanks. I would love to see a list to see if it’s like “this book is really bad” or “my feelings are hurt so I don’t want this book” Because it’s mind boggling that adults can get so upset to react in such a way they need to ruin things for everyone else just cos there’s something they don’t like.
- mynameisvlad 3y ago
  > other than not allowing some books in schools So… book bans. You saw book bans and somehow thought they weren’t that?
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    Eh, I get what he means. When I hear 'book ban' I have mental imagery of trying to smuggle books across the Iron Curtain, risking fines or prison time for buying, possessing or distributing the book. But these book bans don't make any of that illegal, they're fights over the way public libraries are managed. Anything that receives public funding will be subject to such politicking, this seems like the fundamental nature of democracy. But books are special; they're ostensibly entitled to public funding but are simultaneously beyond the purview of the same governments which are funding them. To be clear, I think libraries should carry whichever books are in demand by even a fringe few, regardless of how many other people those books offend. If even just one person in town is interested in a book, the local library should try to get that book (if practical, of course.) But I worry that we're devaluing the term "book ban"; what will we call it when they actually do pass laws making the possession or sale of some books illegal?
jawns 3y ago
This is a bizarre post. It says nothing about what the papers filed actually mean. The papers are a proposed permanent injunction that both the publishers and IA have (mostly) agreed on, although the IA wants the injunction to only apply to books that are in print and licensed by the publishers as ebooks. The publishers want it to apply to all books. I don't know why IA decided to post about it in such a cryptic way, unless maybe it was a condition of the ruling, and they're doing the absolute minimum to satisfy that condition.
- boomboomsubban 3y ago
  I assume they made this small post for those already familiar with the case, and they'll have new larger write-ups on it as the appeal draws nearer. It reads like an update for those already subscribed to their newsletter on the issue.
- qingcharles 3y ago
  I almost never see conditions attached to rulings. No judge would want to be pulled up on some freedom of speech issue. It's just IA being IA...
endisneigh 3y ago
IMHO they were very dumb to do the emergency lending nonsense to begin with. A good example of letting ideology walk you past the cliff. Even if they’re successful against the injunction the damage has been done. Given how tenuous online lending is already, it was naive to push the boundary further. I feel a similar ideological gap is slowly growing in the treatment of data surrounding generative AI.
- boomboomsubban 3y ago
  The emergency lending has almost no relevance in this case, which is about controlled digital lending as a whole
  - endisneigh 3y ago
    The initial ruling cited emergency lending to justify banning all digital lending and the case was only brought up due to it as well. It has the utmost relevance. It’s no coincidence the initial suit happened mere months after the emergency lending began.
    - boomboomsubban 3y ago
      >initial ruling cited emergency lending to justify banning all digital lending and the case was only brought up due to it as well. The ruling's only mention of the emergency lending was that it was illegal as CDL was illegal. There's also a fair amount of reason to suspect the publishers were preparing for the lawsuit far before the emergency lending. They were publishing stories about it and forming a petition against it in 2019, following years of criticizing it.
- Osmose 3y ago
  Personally I find it more naive to think that tiptoeing around book publishers in fear hoping that they can slowly make small progress is the smarter move. They're not going to make serious progress in the fight against unfair online lending terms by appeasing publishers.
CARLDAVE 3y ago
[flagged]
_23sd 3y ago
The specific development this post references is a proposed injunction [1] that Internet Archive and the publishers agreed on and sent to the judge. With certain exceptions (such as accessibility and fair use), IA would have to remove from its lending program any books that are commercially available from the publishers. IA wants "commercially available in electronic text format" and the publishers want "commercially available in any format", they've asked the judge to settle that point. IA reserves the right to appeal the judgement. [1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17211300/214/1/hachette-book-group-inc-v-internet-archive/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17211300/214/1/hachette...
- bensecure 3y ago
  Either way is a win I think. It becomes effectively legal to distribute digital copies of out of print books, which up to now you had to go find a physical copy of if you wanted to read it.
  - qingcharles 3y ago
    I agree. While the injunction has no binding force outside the parties to the suit, I think any other defendants in the future can point to this as persuasive. I'm building an online magazine archive for orphaned media and this is a great ruling for me to use in case I find my entity in legal hot water.
QuantumG 3y ago
Chris Freeland is a menace to our library. The case was open and shut.
- dannyobrien 3y ago
  I'm pretty distant from this, but I'm fairly sure Chris Freeland just wrote this blog post: and my spider sense suggests he probably actually just posted it after it had been collectively written by many many many lawyers.
  - QuantumG 3y ago
    Heh. The EFF is the legal support.
booleandilemma 3y ago
I like what the internet archive is doing, but I'm saddened that many just use it as a hack to get around paywalls. I don't think that's in alignment with the internet archive's mission. I think it's important for society in the long-term to keep journalism a rewarding profession. Maybe as a compromise the internet archive could only allow access to archived journalism content after, say, a year's time. We'd be sure things got archived, and journalists would still get paid.
- boomboomsubban 3y ago
  archive.is has no connection to the Internet Archive, the IA I believe does not allow the easy bypass of things like the NYT paywall.
  - usr1106 3y ago
    This drifting away for the original topic... or maybe it isn't that much if the pessimists are right in the end that IA will shut down after this lawsuit and we need other ressources when searching for something that has disappeared from the net. Is it publicly known who is behind archive.is? Last time I checked about a year ago I could not find a name. But between the lines I could read they are affected by sanctions against Russia. Not individually but by the lack of international banking. So I concluded they are operating from Russia in one way or another.
    - boomboomsubban 3y ago
      There was an article here about it a few days ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37009598 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37009598
- jazzyjackson 3y ago
  The archive's mission is "Universal Access to All Knowledge", how do you figure that keeping a copy of news articles is not in line with that mission? Do you know you can walk into any library and read the daily paper? If a news outfit doesn't like what the archive is doing they can issue takedown requests and the archive will comply. Could be that journalists appreciate having the archive available to them more than viewing it as a threat to their livelihood.
mcpackieh 3y ago
The worst part of this is the CDL scheme used DRM, making it strictly inferior to piracy and therefore essentially useless to me and many others. IA has stuck their neck on the chopping block for the dumbest reason. They should have stuck to legally hosting whatever they can legally host without DRM and left the rest to other organizations that can thumb their noses at American courts.
- wl 3y ago
  They had print books that were not otherwise available as ebooks. This has been immensely useful for my research. I have a feeling that I have a whole lot more interlibrary loans in my future.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    > They had print books that were not otherwise available as ebooks. Including pirate sources? I know they had a lot of ebooks that had no official and legitimate ebook, I encountered many of those, but in every case I was able to find the same scanned book somewhere else without the DRM. Probably the same scan I'm guessing, stripped of DRM or maybe uploaded elsewhere by the same person who scanned it for IA.
    - wl 3y ago
      Yes, including pirate sources. There's a lot of academic work from circa 1970-1990 that publishers don't care to make available as ebooks and are too obscure for pirates to have any interest in digitizing.
mdp2021 3y ago
Furthermore: I am seeing in the CNA (Channel News Asia) titles a: > Music labels sue Internet Archive over digitized record collection https://www.channelnewsasia.com/cna-lifestyle/music-labels-sue-internet-archive-over-digitized-record-collection- https://www.channelnewsasia.com/cna-lifestyle/music-labels-s... -- One note: > The lawsuit said the recordings are all available on authorized streaming services and "face no danger of being lost, forgotten, or destroyed" «Authorized streaming services» are businesses, not preservation entities (libraries). They do not inherently provide a warranty.

192 points by app4soft 3y ago

Post on Mastodon:[0] > We submitted a letter to the court today in the ongoing lawsuit against our library. We’re fighting for the rights of libraries to use their print collections in the digital age [0] https://mastodon.archive.org/@internetarchive/110872318293638005 https://mastodon.archive.org/@internetarchive/11087231829363...

uptie 3y ago

Error getting a database connection. This link was posted 7 minutes ago. Hmnn... sounds like their fight is definitely ongoing

totetsu 3y ago
http://archive.today/2023.08.12-020044/https://blog.archive.org/2023/08/11/our-fight-is-far-from-over/ http://archive.today/2023.08.12-020044/https://blog.archive....

Nas808 3y ago

This is about the "National Emergency Library" they launched during the peak of the COVID pandemic? I think they had good intentions, but the legality around it was definitely questionable from the start.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mod50ack 3y ago
Yes, in part. But it's also about their online lending program wholesale.
boomboomsubban 3y ago
No, this is about controlled digital lending as a whole. The ruling issued struck down all CDL, and only mentioned the National Emergency Library to say that it was also illegal as CDL was illegal.
deely3 3y ago
> legality around it was definitely questionable from the start. Can I cite old argument that "If someone invents book libraries now, they will be completely illegal."?

throwaway2990 3y ago

[flagged]

conception 3y ago
https://time.com/6211350/public-libraries-book-bans/ https://time.com/6211350/public-libraries-book-bans/ https://ilovelibraries.org/article/u-s-book-challenges-update-august-11-edition/ https://ilovelibraries.org/article/u-s-book-challenges-updat... Etc
cristoperb 3y ago
Here's a press release from the ALA on the recent increase in book challenges: https://www.ala.org/news/press-releases/2022/09/ala-releases-preliminary-data-2022-book-bans https://www.ala.org/news/press-releases/2022/09/ala-releases... > Between January 1 and August 31, 2022, ALA documented 681 attempts to ban or restrict library resources, and 1,651 unique titles were targeted. In 2021, ALA reported 729 attempts to censor library resources, targeting 1,597 books, which represented the highest number of attempted book bans since ALA began compiling these lists more than 20 years ago.
- throwaway2990 3y ago
  Thanks. I would love to see a list to see if it’s like “this book is really bad” or “my feelings are hurt so I don’t want this book” Because it’s mind boggling that adults can get so upset to react in such a way they need to ruin things for everyone else just cos there’s something they don’t like.
mynameisvlad 3y ago
> other than not allowing some books in schools So… book bans. You saw book bans and somehow thought they weren’t that?
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  Eh, I get what he means. When I hear 'book ban' I have mental imagery of trying to smuggle books across the Iron Curtain, risking fines or prison time for buying, possessing or distributing the book. But these book bans don't make any of that illegal, they're fights over the way public libraries are managed. Anything that receives public funding will be subject to such politicking, this seems like the fundamental nature of democracy. But books are special; they're ostensibly entitled to public funding but are simultaneously beyond the purview of the same governments which are funding them. To be clear, I think libraries should carry whichever books are in demand by even a fringe few, regardless of how many other people those books offend. If even just one person in town is interested in a book, the local library should try to get that book (if practical, of course.) But I worry that we're devaluing the term "book ban"; what will we call it when they actually do pass laws making the possession or sale of some books illegal?

jawns 3y ago

This is a bizarre post. It says nothing about what the papers filed actually mean. The papers are a proposed permanent injunction that both the publishers and IA have (mostly) agreed on, although the IA wants the injunction to only apply to books that are in print and licensed by the publishers as ebooks. The publishers want it to apply to all books. I don't know why IA decided to post about it in such a cryptic way, unless maybe it was a condition of the ruling, and they're doing the absolute minimum to satisfy that condition.

boomboomsubban 3y ago
I assume they made this small post for those already familiar with the case, and they'll have new larger write-ups on it as the appeal draws nearer. It reads like an update for those already subscribed to their newsletter on the issue.
qingcharles 3y ago
I almost never see conditions attached to rulings. No judge would want to be pulled up on some freedom of speech issue. It's just IA being IA...

endisneigh 3y ago

IMHO they were very dumb to do the emergency lending nonsense to begin with. A good example of letting ideology walk you past the cliff. Even if they’re successful against the injunction the damage has been done. Given how tenuous online lending is already, it was naive to push the boundary further. I feel a similar ideological gap is slowly growing in the treatment of data surrounding generative AI.

boomboomsubban 3y ago
The emergency lending has almost no relevance in this case, which is about controlled digital lending as a whole
- endisneigh 3y ago
  The initial ruling cited emergency lending to justify banning all digital lending and the case was only brought up due to it as well. It has the utmost relevance. It’s no coincidence the initial suit happened mere months after the emergency lending began.
  - boomboomsubban 3y ago
    >initial ruling cited emergency lending to justify banning all digital lending and the case was only brought up due to it as well. The ruling's only mention of the emergency lending was that it was illegal as CDL was illegal. There's also a fair amount of reason to suspect the publishers were preparing for the lawsuit far before the emergency lending. They were publishing stories about it and forming a petition against it in 2019, following years of criticizing it.
Osmose 3y ago
Personally I find it more naive to think that tiptoeing around book publishers in fear hoping that they can slowly make small progress is the smarter move. They're not going to make serious progress in the fight against unfair online lending terms by appeasing publishers.

CARLDAVE 3y ago

[flagged]

_23sd 3y ago

The specific development this post references is a proposed injunction [1] that Internet Archive and the publishers agreed on and sent to the judge. With certain exceptions (such as accessibility and fair use), IA would have to remove from its lending program any books that are commercially available from the publishers. IA wants "commercially available in electronic text format" and the publishers want "commercially available in any format", they've asked the judge to settle that point. IA reserves the right to appeal the judgement. [1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17211300/214/1/hachette-book-group-inc-v-internet-archive/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17211300/214/1/hachette...

bensecure 3y ago
Either way is a win I think. It becomes effectively legal to distribute digital copies of out of print books, which up to now you had to go find a physical copy of if you wanted to read it.
- qingcharles 3y ago
  I agree. While the injunction has no binding force outside the parties to the suit, I think any other defendants in the future can point to this as persuasive. I'm building an online magazine archive for orphaned media and this is a great ruling for me to use in case I find my entity in legal hot water.

QuantumG 3y ago

Chris Freeland is a menace to our library. The case was open and shut.

dannyobrien 3y ago
I'm pretty distant from this, but I'm fairly sure Chris Freeland just wrote this blog post: and my spider sense suggests he probably actually just posted it after it had been collectively written by many many many lawyers.
- QuantumG 3y ago
  Heh. The EFF is the legal support.

booleandilemma 3y ago

I like what the internet archive is doing, but I'm saddened that many just use it as a hack to get around paywalls. I don't think that's in alignment with the internet archive's mission. I think it's important for society in the long-term to keep journalism a rewarding profession. Maybe as a compromise the internet archive could only allow access to archived journalism content after, say, a year's time. We'd be sure things got archived, and journalists would still get paid.

boomboomsubban 3y ago
archive.is has no connection to the Internet Archive, the IA I believe does not allow the easy bypass of things like the NYT paywall.
- usr1106 3y ago
  This drifting away for the original topic... or maybe it isn't that much if the pessimists are right in the end that IA will shut down after this lawsuit and we need other ressources when searching for something that has disappeared from the net. Is it publicly known who is behind archive.is? Last time I checked about a year ago I could not find a name. But between the lines I could read they are affected by sanctions against Russia. Not individually but by the lack of international banking. So I concluded they are operating from Russia in one way or another.
  - boomboomsubban 3y ago
    There was an article here about it a few days ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37009598 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37009598
jazzyjackson 3y ago
The archive's mission is "Universal Access to All Knowledge", how do you figure that keeping a copy of news articles is not in line with that mission? Do you know you can walk into any library and read the daily paper? If a news outfit doesn't like what the archive is doing they can issue takedown requests and the archive will comply. Could be that journalists appreciate having the archive available to them more than viewing it as a threat to their livelihood.

mcpackieh 3y ago

The worst part of this is the CDL scheme used DRM, making it strictly inferior to piracy and therefore essentially useless to me and many others. IA has stuck their neck on the chopping block for the dumbest reason. They should have stuck to legally hosting whatever they can legally host without DRM and left the rest to other organizations that can thumb their noses at American courts.

wl 3y ago
They had print books that were not otherwise available as ebooks. This has been immensely useful for my research. I have a feeling that I have a whole lot more interlibrary loans in my future.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  > They had print books that were not otherwise available as ebooks. Including pirate sources? I know they had a lot of ebooks that had no official and legitimate ebook, I encountered many of those, but in every case I was able to find the same scanned book somewhere else without the DRM. Probably the same scan I'm guessing, stripped of DRM or maybe uploaded elsewhere by the same person who scanned it for IA.
  - wl 3y ago
    Yes, including pirate sources. There's a lot of academic work from circa 1970-1990 that publishers don't care to make available as ebooks and are too obscure for pirates to have any interest in digitizing.

mdp2021 3y ago

Furthermore: I am seeing in the CNA (Channel News Asia) titles a: > Music labels sue Internet Archive over digitized record collection https://www.channelnewsasia.com/cna-lifestyle/music-labels-sue-internet-archive-over-digitized-record-collection- https://www.channelnewsasia.com/cna-lifestyle/music-labels-s... -- One note: > The lawsuit said the recordings are all available on authorized streaming services and "face no danger of being lost, forgotten, or destroyed" «Authorized streaming services» are businesses, not preservation entities (libraries). They do not inherently provide a warranty.