Comment on Internet Archive’s legal fights are over, but its founder mourns what was lost
dan@upvote.au 2 days ago
I have mixed feelings. I’m glad they survived the lawsuits, and now they can spend their funding on their actual goals rather than it going towards lawyers, but it’s also really sad that they had to delete so much of their archive - over half a million books, and a bunch of recordings from their Great 78 Project (which was archiving 300k+ music albums released between ~1900 and 1950).
SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
I really hope that they didn’t actually delete anything, and only just removed public access.
Pringles@sopuli.xyz 1 day ago
And open themselves up to massive penalties? That would be beyond stupid.
baod_rate@programming.dev 14 hours ago
the judgement did not require they delete the books from their archives, only that they stop lending out digital copies of books fitting specific criteria. which should be obvious because possession not copyright infringement, reproduction/distribution is.
in fact, the judgement specfically allows Internet Archive to continue to use those books “for the purpose of accessibility for ‘eligible persons’”
SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
I wouldn’t think a library/archive retaining data in an offline form would incur penalties, and I feel like preserving books for the future is the opposite of stupid.
Pringles@sopuli.xyz 1 day ago
Preserving is important, sure. But if the settlement required them to delete it and they keep an offline backup and this ever gets out, the settlement is voided and it opens up a world of hurt for them.
This is not a debate about the merits of preservation but about legal repercussions for the Internet Archive.
dan@upvote.au 21 hours ago
I’m 95% sure the settlement with the publishers would have included a clause requiring the Internet Archive to delete all “infringing” material in their possession.