The Internet Archive and a group of leading book publishers told a Manhattan federal court on Friday that they have resolved aspects of their legal battle over the Archive's digital lending of their scanned books.
‘“Covered Book” shall mean any in-copyright book or portion thereof, whether in existence as of the date hereof or later created, in which any Plaintiff (or any subsidiary or corporate affiliate of a Plaintiff) (a) owns or controls an exclusive right under the Copyright Act …’
‘the “Internet Archive Parties” … are permanently enjoined and restrained from engaging in any of the following acts in, from or to the United States … the distribution to the public, public display, and/or public performance, of Covered Books in, from or to the United States in Case 1:20-cv-04160-JGK-OTW Document 214-1 Filed 08/11/23 Page 3 of 6 any digital or electronic form, including without limitation on the Internet Archive website (collectively “Unauthorized Distribution”)’
So while backing up the entire lending library might have been a challenge, perhaps the books of just the plaintiff publishers can be backed up?
Might also be an opportunity to punish the publishers by distributing their copyrighted works and hurting their pocket (though it seems they’re still yet to prove that piracy actually hurts profits!)
Yeah, you know, that [checks notes] one copy of a book that the lending library was able to lend* was really eating into their profit margin. Honest to God, they probably spent more money on lawyers over this shit than they’ll ever recoup, and it just makes them look stupid, greedy, and stupidly greedy.
*I think it’s one copy per actually book that’s owned. Just like you can’t lend you friends more copies of a given book than you own.
The publishers have called the Archive’s program a front for mass copyright infringement.
Digital libraries are a front for mass copyright infringement, according to the publishers :)
But for real, what’s the difference between a digital library that artificially limits the amount of books they lend out to the amount of books they scan and a traditional library? I can go to my local library right now, take a book home, photocopy the book at home, and return the book to the library. Not as high quality as a digital copy, but still.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Yeah, you know, that [checks notes] one copy of a book that the lending library was able to lend* was really eating into their profit margin. Honest to God, they probably spent more money on lawyers over this shit than they’ll ever recoup, and it just makes them look stupid, greedy, and stupidly greedy.
*I think it’s one copy per actually book that’s owned. Just like you can’t lend you friends more copies of a given book than you own.
Feature, not a bug
Digital libraries are a front for mass copyright infringement, according to the publishers :)
But for real, what’s the difference between a digital library that artificially limits the amount of books they lend out to the amount of books they scan and a traditional library? I can go to my local library right now, take a book home, photocopy the book at home, and return the book to the library. Not as high quality as a digital copy, but still.