4 ms·

There was a good article posted previously here on HN about the lawsuit. There is something in the current framework that allows libraries to lend out digital

by hosh 2y ago

There was a good article posted previously here on HN about the lawsuit. There is something in the current framework that allows libraries to lend out digital copies — by having purchased a physical copy. They can lend out one digital copy for each physical copy they hold. What Internet Archive did was, during Covid, opened up lending to exceed the physical copies they held. They did not ask the copyright holders when they did this. They broke the law, and their case has no legal merit. Their argument was to appeal to public opinion. The results of the lawsuit may jeopardize their main mission. I really respected the IA, but how they are going about this is dishonest.

chx 2y ago
Yes, the very moment they did this I was like "Why are you risking the Internet Archive with doing something this stupid?" Their argument was there are enough physical copies in shuttered libraries to cover any lending and it's not impossible they could've gotten the publishers on board if they went public with the plan first urging for swift agreement instead of going for "it's easier to ask for forgiveness than to get permission".
- hosh 2y ago
  If the goal was to relieve the general public from being stuck inside, they did not have to go for opening everything up. There are a number of university presses listed in the lawsuit, but I doubt most people would want to slog through textbooks. They could have also added code to help people find the books they are looking for in their _local_ libraries if they reached the lending limit. That would bring more attention to the local library and what they do for their community. They could have asked the public to donate books. There may be logistics problem with sending the books over, but it can be something that raised awareness and involved the public more with what their mission. There was lots of ways to do this. Disabling the code to ignore lending limits was low effort … and frankly, not well considered.

by hosh 2y ago

chx 2y ago

Yes, the very moment they did this I was like "Why are you risking the Internet Archive with doing something this stupid?" Their argument was there are enough physical copies in shuttered libraries to cover any lending and it's not impossible they could've gotten the publishers on board if they went public with the plan first urging for swift agreement instead of going for "it's easier to ask for forgiveness than to get permission".

hosh 2y ago
If the goal was to relieve the general public from being stuck inside, they did not have to go for opening everything up. There are a number of university presses listed in the lawsuit, but I doubt most people would want to slog through textbooks. They could have also added code to help people find the books they are looking for in their _local_ libraries if they reached the lending limit. That would bring more attention to the local library and what they do for their community. They could have asked the public to donate books. There may be logistics problem with sending the books over, but it can be something that raised awareness and involved the public more with what their mission. There was lots of ways to do this. Disabling the code to ignore lending limits was low effort … and frankly, not well considered.