|
Youtube is a bad example as they have an incentive to allow all content (adverts) and checking video is harder than book texts. Also the IA content has been acquired over years, they KNOW which files THEY scanned from copyright books and which are out of copyright and which are legal bulk donations from the Universities.
They are NOW offering on Twitter to take down anything anyone objects to. That is the wrong way round. They pretty much know, unlike YouTube, what content is likely copyright. They can even automate checking their metadata with book catalogues! It should be opt in only.
Their public claims about Education and donated University content are misleading. They know they have been scanning copyright works themselves and acquiring them in bulk, not just individual "home pirates". This is an industrial scale attack on copyright going back over ten years, using the covid-19 crises to publicise their Open Library and relax the "lending rules". I hadn't realised the Open Library was actually piracy all along because they never got licences and never paid royalty. All the assumed to be public domain books are and have been available all along OUTSIDE the Open Library for direct download. Though some of that content is still copyright in the USA.
The USA led extension of copyright and the Google assumption of what is an "Orphan Work" are separate issues.
Unfairness doesn't give IA a free pass. Also many of these works are in print and copyright and not education.
It's not about Education, even though they make that claim.
This isn't covered by "fair use".
|