I saw a comment expressing this ruling is only applicable to e-books where there already exists an e-book from the publisher, and that it won’t affect media preservation or books that have been scanned (e.g., old textbooks) and that do not have an e-book. Is this true? If so, it’s not all bad.
You are correct: the ruling simply affirms the plaintiff’s claim against IA.
Any out-of-copyright and non-copyright items, as well as items with permissive terms (e.g., Creative Commons licenses) will still be available on IA. Previously, the plaintiff Hachette offered a deal that IA rejected, in which IA would be allowed to make digital copies of Hachette texts that are either out-of-print titles, or titles for which digital copies have never been produced.
Right now, it’s up to Hachette and the other publishers affected in the case whether that offer is still available.
The in-house scanning service at the Internet Archive (IA) differs from the licensing agreements entered into by other libraries. These agreements see libraries license ‘official’ e-book versions from publishers, who charge for every book that’s lent out to patrons.
The schools are in shambles and books are for the monied elite. Time to donate to your favorite archive site. A buck here, five there can make a difference.
This is just going to be the floodgate effect for when copyright of any kind is going to be challenged against Internet Archive and we’ll see more losses.
I’m sad to say but I don’t think Internet Archive is going to have much longer.
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.
I saw a comment expressing this ruling is only applicable to e-books where there already exists an e-book from the publisher, and that it won’t affect media preservation or books that have been scanned (e.g., old textbooks) and that do not have an e-book. Is this true? If so, it’s not all bad.
I didn’t see anything in the ruling that would restrict it in that way, but i would be happy to be wrong there.
You are correct: the ruling simply affirms the plaintiff’s claim against IA.
Any out-of-copyright and non-copyright items, as well as items with permissive terms (e.g., Creative Commons licenses) will still be available on IA. Previously, the plaintiff Hachette offered a deal that IA rejected, in which IA would be allowed to make digital copies of Hachette texts that are either out-of-print titles, or titles for which digital copies have never been produced.
Right now, it’s up to Hachette and the other publishers affected in the case whether that offer is still available.
edited: hyphens.
A sad day for pro-preservation advocates
In regards to how precedent can fuck over future decisions, could this now cause issues for libraries in the future?
Unlikely.
Fair enough. Thanks for the clarity.
So it’s not “unlikely” that it will fuck over libraries. It’s already happened.
The schools are in shambles and books are for the monied elite. Time to donate to your favorite archive site. A buck here, five there can make a difference.
Also, buy physical media. You don’t own digital movies without the file; you’re just given access to them.
Copy of the decision: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Hachette-v-Internet-Archive-Second-Circuit-Appeals-Court-Decision-9-4-2024.pdf
Oh…this is not good.
This is just going to be the floodgate effect for when copyright of any kind is going to be challenged against Internet Archive and we’ll see more losses.
I’m sad to say but I don’t think Internet Archive is going to have much longer.
who needs archives when you have bazinga startups and record shareholder profits
Who would win?
I think we all know the answer.