Comment on Internet Archive’s legal fights are over, but its founder mourns what was lost

• Pringles@sopuli.xyz ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  And open themselves up to massive penalties? That would be beyond stupid.

  source

  • SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ 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.

    source

    • Pringles@sopuli.xyz ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ 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.

      source

      • SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        I didn’t know if it did or didn’t. But since you say that’s the case, that sucks and I hate the publishers even more.

        source
    • dan@upvote.au ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ 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.

      source

      • baod_rate@programming.dev ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        what’s your methodology for that 95% figure? because Internet Archive themselves mention no such clause:

        The lawsuit only concerns our book lending program. The injunction clarifies that the Publisher Plaintiffs will notify us of their commercially available books, and the Internet Archive will expeditiously remove them from lending. Additionally, Judge Koeltl also signed an orderin favor of the Internet Archive, agreeing with our request that the injunction should only cover books available in electronic format, and not the publishers’ full catalog of books in print

        Because this case was limited to our book lending program, the injunction does not significantly impact our other library services.  The Internet Archive may still digitize books for preservation purposes, and may still provide access to our digital collections in a number of ways, including through interlibrary loan and by making accessible formats available to people with qualified print disabilities. We may continue to display “short portions” of books as is consistent with fair use—for example, Wikipedia references (as shown in the image above). The injunction does not affect lending of out-of-print books. And of course, the Internet Archive will still make millions of public domain texts available to the public without restriction.

        source
  • baod_rate@programming.dev ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ 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’”

    source