Lending/scanning will more than likely change and if like other libraries, will probably have to pay through the nose for the "privledge" of providing eBooks.
Honestly, the publishers can get fucked. The IA was doing a service and they could've worked something out. At this point [redacted] is MC.
the internet archive was lending out the books in its collection, which is what libraries do.
publishers charging extortionate rates to libraries for the privilege of being allowed to lend out heavily restricted copies of books is not something any author should support.
It's going to be the end of their controlled digital lending program (where they scan physical copies of books they own, then lend out protected ebooks they created while the physical copies don't circulate), at least for many hundreds of thousands of books.
Maybe...if they didn't illegally pirate books that are still in copywrite, or at least paid standard library fees for them, this wouldn't have been a problem.
Oh, you mean instead of using a legally obtained copy to lend via the Internet, they paid 10x the cover price for the right to lend for a limited amount of time?
I'm too old now to pick fights with people in someone else's mentions, but it wasn't obvious that controlled digital lending—where they've scanned books they own and which are circulated on a 1:1 basis with their copies which don't otherwise circulate—isn't legal. https://controlleddigitallending.org
well, no, in this case only the lawyers (and expert witnesses) on the IA’s side showed evidence. and that the court chose to side with them while explicitly acknowledging that they provided no such evidence is extremely disheartening.
Their arrogance in 2020 led to this entirely predictable outcome that has fucked us all, when publishers were perfectly content to leave the status quo be until Internet Archive decided to take it a step further.
...because it was indeed similar enough in concept to what libraries already do that it wasn't worth the expense of litigating for an uncertain outcome.
That calculus changed when Internet Archive decided in 2020 to go from a 1:1 correspondence of sold to shared copy, to unlimited copying.
That OBVIOUSLY was never going to fly, so of course publishers sued over it. And when publishers (entirely predictably) sued over that, the marginal cost of adding the original controlled-lending program to the case that was already happening was low enough...
...was low enough that they went ahead and added a suit over CDL as a "fuck you".
Internet Archive brought this upon themselves, and we all get fucked over by a bad decision in a suit that never would have been brought if not for Internet Archive's arrogant decision to take things further
Comments
Honestly, the publishers can get fucked. The IA was doing a service and they could've worked something out. At this point [redacted] is MC.
publishers charging extortionate rates to libraries for the privilege of being allowed to lend out heavily restricted copies of books is not something any author should support.
If you're to claim something, better have facts to back you up. You don't have any.
The practice that was found illegal in this suit was one that publishers were absolutely perfectly fine to let go initially...
That calculus changed when Internet Archive decided in 2020 to go from a 1:1 correspondence of sold to shared copy, to unlimited copying.
Internet Archive brought this upon themselves, and we all get fucked over by a bad decision in a suit that never would have been brought if not for Internet Archive's arrogant decision to take things further