Four publishers are trying to destroy the Internet Archive and digital lending

Alfonso Maruccia

Posts: 950   +293
Staff
In context: Founded by Brewster Kahle in May 1996, the Internet Archive is a digital library designed around the idea of "universal access to all knowledge." The repository provides free, public access to vast collections of books, movies, music, software applications, games, and billions of web pages. It also hosts the Wayback Machine, a service that allows users to look up past versions of current and defunct websites.

One of the most popular and controversial offers provided by the Internet Archive (IA) is its Controlled Digital Lending (CDL) service, which grants users access to a digital library of books. Users can borrow as many copies of a book as the IA, and its partners physically own. In other words, if the IA has a single copy of a given title, it can loan it to a single person. Anyone else wanting to read it must wait for its return. Brick-and-mortar libraries have operated this way for decades.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) explains that CDL is a way for the Internet Archive to keep books in circulation, especially when publishers have lost commercial interest and stopped printing and selling. Four of the biggest publishers look at things from a different viewpoint. Hachette, HarperCollins, Wiley, and Penguin Random House have brought the Internet Archive to court, alleging that the CDL service violates copyright laws.

The lawsuit, first filed against the IA on June 1, 2020, asked for an injunction order to destroy "all unlawful copies" provided by the digital archive and to make the San Francisco non-profit organization pay for the hypothetical damages brought to the four companies' publishing businesses.

The initial oral argument in Hachette v. Internet Archive was held in the Southern District of New York this Monday. The IA said it stood up for the "digital rights of all libraries" against the four publishers, making its case as to whether a library has the right to make and lend a digital copy of a (printed) book it owns without getting an official license from the original publisher first.

The IA currently has 1.3 million books in digital format through the CDL program. According to the organization's counterclaim, it is essentially the "same as traditional library lending" and poses no actual harm to authors or the publishing industry. Libraries have collectively paid publishers "billions of dollars" to put books in their print collections, the IA said, and are investing enormous resources in digitalization to preserve those books.

"The publishers are now demanding that those millions of digitized books, not only be made inaccessible, but be destroyed," said Internet Archive founder Brewster Kahle during a press conference (above). "This is horrendous. If they succeed in destroying our books or even making many of them inaccessible, there will be a chilling effect on the hundreds of other libraries that lend digitized books as we do. This could be the burning of the Library of Alexandria moment—millions of books from our community's libraries—gone."

Permalink to story.

 
This is terrible, but it has an easy answer.

release the books if these four ignorant companies get their way, its a digital archive, just open the floodgates and let the masses download as much as their speed and capacity lets them until the site is knocked offline. f**k these companies.

they're actively hindering people with this lawsuit, at some point when will we notice there's a handful of these terrible companies and millions of us. what are they gonna do? arrest the entire planet?
 
The thing is this library is a very idealistic one - nothing like say Zlibrary - the people who host it it different countries do so a with costs and effort - nothing really to do with piracy. Maybe pirates source books from there to host on no such restriction sites.
The Publishers can argue that all printed works with lose copyright and become public domain - and we will be picked up by idealistic archivists
 
The problem is that copyright is way too long, it should be 10 years at the most.

Look at Wikipedia, it's a collective work and it's free from the start, no one can argue that it's moribund because of that.

Over 80% of their profits come in the first two years, why do they need +70 extra years after their death?!

Because of that there are a lot of canceling collisions which slow down the innovation. Furthermore, if the work is worthwhile, they benefit greatly from the network effects of free distribution by those who can't afford it.
 
You know what needs to be done? Let The Pirate Bay make a mirror of the archive.

Far more powerful (and more evil) entities have tried for years to eradicate TPB. Well, it still exists to this day and has been laughing in the faces of those who would see its annihilation the whole time.

Let those who control these companies cry in their silver cups.
 
Last edited:
The problem is that copyright is way too long, it should be 10 years at the most.

Look at Wikipedia, it's a collective work and it's free from the start, no one can argue that it's moribund because of that.

Over 80% of their profits come in the first two years, why do they need +70 extra years after their death?!

Because of that there are a lot of canceling collisions which slow down the innovation. Furthermore, if the work is worthwhile, they benefit greatly from the network effects of free distribution by those who can't afford it.
Look, I think the publishing companies are being greedy but I also think the digital library is not EXACTLY acting like a brick and mortar library. Physical library books wear out. They should not have an infinite life and then argue that it's the same as a brick and mortar library. But as far as copyright laws, artists are already undervalued in our society. People who wouldn't steal a piece of gum have no problem stealing images, music, movies and books off the internet. If you spent 15 years writing a book and put your life's blood into, don't you feel like you should have some major ownership of the result? I make this argument for visual artists all of the time. People who argue against copyright are usually responding to corporate greed or being defensive over their use of others' hard won work product. Don't punish the artists by taking away the small legal protections they have, most are barely making a living as it is.
 
People who argue against copyright are usually responding to corporate greed or being defensive over their use of others' hard won work product. Don't punish the artists by taking away the small legal protections they have, most are barely making a living as it is.
You're kidding, right? These publishing corporations have existed for close to a century and have raked in billions of dollars during their existence and you would have us believe that they're "barely making a living as it is"?

Please tell me you're joking because that's guano-insane! 🤣
 
You're kidding, right? These publishing corporations have existed for close to a century and have raked in billions of dollars during their existence and you would have us believe that they're "barely making a living as it is"?

Please tell me you're joking because that's guano-insane! 🤣
Pretty sure I was talking about the artists, not the representation and there are a huge lot more writers than Stephen King and J.K. Rowling, and I guarantee you, the majority of them are not rolling in it. If you want to make more laws to protect artists' interests from corporations, great, but don't take away one of our few protections just because companies like Disney and Random House are tyrants. I assure you, the artists are none too fond of their management taking a huge cut but making a steady income while trying to stay in the same place for any length of time ain't easy.
 
Back