4 ms·
My understanding is that the original Internet Archive library worked under the 1:1 lending theory. Then, during COVID, they decided to open up what they called
by thenewnewguy 2y ago
My understanding is that the original Internet Archive library worked under the 1:1 lending theory. Then, during COVID, they decided to open up what they called the "National Emergency Library", offering unlimited copies of the books, which is why the lawsuit happened.
- gojomo 2y agoRoughly correct, but: the main issue turned out to be whether even the 1:1 lending was legal. That's what the initial ruling clearly denied IA, and contesting that is the focus of the IA's appeal. (The appeal also asks, in a small aside section 'II', that if the general idea of 1:1 controlled digital lending judged acceptable, that the ruling with regard to the temporary "National Emergency Library" expansion also be reevaluated in that light.)
- _aavaa_ 2y agoThat was my understand as well. Which is why the Cornell link from above is confusing since it seems to explicitly allow for 1:1 copies.
- gojomo 2y agoSome of the language in the Cornell page implies to me it's specific to "preservation" copies, not necessarily other format-shifts for lending. But the interactions of tradition, legal precedents, and different laws in different places are complicated, and subject to interpretation & various shifting balances-of-considerations! That's why it's silly when armchair opinionators casually judge, "IA clearly did something wrong". There's a lot of room in the law for fair-use copying, even against the rightsholders' strongest wishes, and especially for librarylike activities.