Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg
Wrong, I'm afraid. Lots of material that Internet Archive loans is copyrighted in every nation.
See:
The Internet Archive’s Open Library is violating authors’ copyrights
So why doesn't Internet Archive get the Kim Dotcom treatment?
Here are some guesses:
-- So few people are satisfied reading uncorrected scans, with a two week DRM-enforced borrowing limit, that it doesn't seem economically worth it to sue for such a violation
-- Maybe they promptly obey takedown notices, and then never re-post that book or magazine
-- They have powerful friends. (Librarians are powerful? Well, I said these are guesses.)
For what I mean by friends, see:
https://openlibrary.org/libraries
P.S. Another possibility is that what Open Library is doing -- lending out one copy at a time of a scanned paper book that was purchased -- would be ruled legal by appellate courts. Now, my guess is that it would be ruled illegal by appellate courts. But if I was a prosecutor, with limited resources, I would not go after a lawbreaker if there seemed even a small chance that what we would be changing him or her with is actually legal. |
The magazine I am talking about is hosted in the
Internet Archive, not in the
Open Library.
You can download anything from the
Internet Archive and keep it. It's not a loan. You don't even need an account to download from the
Internet Archive.
The
Open Library works as any other online library. You need an account and, unless you read online, you need ADE installed in your computer, because the documents are DRMed and when you borrow a book, it becomes unavailable to other users.