End of Hachette v. Internet Archive

[ownedbycats]

https://blog.archive.org/2024/12/04/...ernet-archive/

While we are deeply disappointed with the Second Circuit’s opinion in Hachette v. Internet Archive, the Internet Archive has decided not to pursue Supreme Court review. We will continue to honor the Association of American Publishers (AAP) agreement to remove books from lending at their member publishers’ requests.

We thank the many readers, authors and publishers who have stood with us throughout this fight. Together, we will continue to advocate for a future where libraries can purchase, own, lend and preserve digital books.

This also seems an appropriate place to mention that the Archive is also deprecating the Adobe DRM and switching over to LCP/Readium for encrypted downloads.

[Quoth]

So court rulings have proved the Archive's Open Library is simply a pirate site dressed up in good intentions.

[Even the main free downloads has increasing amounts of copyright content.*]

Check before you download and support libraries that pay the content providers.

Together, we will continue to advocate for a future where libraries can purchase, own, lend and preserve digital books.

That's not achieved by making up your own rules for other people's copyrighted content.

Lobby governments. For example Amazon's KU / KDP Select and Amazon's attitude to libraries is the big threat to readers. Not publishers and authors who don't want copyright violated by Internet Archive / Open Library.


EDIT
[* Just my impression and probably now outdated as I've not visited/searched there in a while]

[Quoth]

Also Disney & friends have got copyright term made too long.

Reform isn't achieved by someone arrogantly making up their own rules.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Even the main free downloads has increasing amounts of copyright content.

Purely anecdotally speaking, I don't think this is accurate. It seems to me that many (most?) books at IA under copyright are no longer downloadable and have been shifted to "read online only" status. Similarly, books that were formerly available as read online are now inaccessible.

And while I'm at it I'll engage in some whataboutism as well, in that I don't think Amazon, as just one example, polices its listings for pirated listings. At all. They only respond to complaints from rights holders even in cases of egregious violations.

At least IA wasn't selling the books and did provide a desirable service; it could be the only source of out-of-print copyrighted books. So I get the temptation. And since their downloads were lousy quality, who wouldn't buy the ebook if they could?

I do take your point, but perhaps this whole kerfuffle will nudge along access to the inaccessible.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by issybird

Purely anecdotally speaking, I don't think this is accurate. It seems to me that many (most?) books at IA under copyright are no longer downloadable and have been shifted to "read online only" status. Similarly, books that were formerly available as read online are now inaccessible.

You may be right. It's only an impression. But it's still copyright violation if shifted to Open Library, unless written permission from rights holder. People may feel that's unfair, but that's how it works in Civil law.

Originally Posted by issybird

And while I'm at it I'll engage in some whataboutism as well, in that I don't think Amazon, as just one example, polices its listings for pirated listings. At all. They only respond to complaints from rights holders even in cases of egregious violations.

True. And it has to be the rights holder, not A. N. Other.
It's bizarre and worse. They scan for Amazon exclusive content on other sites and then penalise the KDP Select rights holder, usually accusing them of breaking the agreement, even if pirated and book is then blocked from sale!

Originally Posted by issybird

At least IA wasn't selling the books and did provide a desirable service; it could be the only source of out-of-print copyrighted books.

Yes. I have every sympathy for readers who want something and can't get it/ There are even IN PRINT & EBOOK version of a work in a Series only maybe available in certain countries.

Anyone that denies publishing and copyright laws are broken is bonkers. However unilateral "pirating" even as a "one loan out at a time" DRMed eLibrary with most secure DRM isn't the answer, but lobbying to change the rules is. The OpenLibray / IA attitude may help readers, and be out of kind motivation, but it's destructive to the rule of law. A thin end of a wedge.

Originally Posted by issybird

So I get the temptation. And since their downloads were lousy quality, who wouldn't buy the ebook if they could?

I do take your point, but perhaps this whole kerfuffle will nudge along access to the inaccessible.

I hope things change.

• Cheap POD means no excuse for "Out of Print".
• No excuse to not have ebooks. Even once off cost of OCR and human proof if no electronic format is peanuts compared to waste by Publishers.
• End Geographic limited sales.
• Stop making copyright longer. It should be shortened, but pigs would sooner be flying over a frozen hell and World Peace, no homelessness or hunger. War, homelessness and hunger are caused by greed and egotism.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Quoth

You may be right. It's only an impression. But it's still copyright violation if shifted to Open Library, unless written permission from rights holder.

I wasn't arguing that it's not still copyright violation, just that, far from there being "increasing amounts of copyright content" available as downloads at IA, there is now much, much less and it's been like that for some time. I did identify this as my personal experience since impressions should be noted as such and not cited as facts.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by issybird

I wasn't arguing that it's not still copyright violation, just that, far from there being "increasing amounts of copyright content" available as downloads at IA, there is now much, much less and it's been like that for some time. I did identify this as my personal experience since impressions should be noted as such and not cited as facts.

Yes. Thanks, the "increasing amounts of copyright content" wasn't a fact, just my impression, and I've not visited recently. Edited the OP.

[ownedbycats]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Anyone that denies publishing and copyright laws are broken is bonkers. However unilateral "pirating" even as a "one loan out at a time" DRMed eLibrary with most secure DRM isn't the answer, but lobbying to change the rules is.

Not when the system is rigged.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by ownedbycats

Not when the system is rigged.

Well, depends if you live in a democracy with the rule of law, or under a dictatorship. Under the dictatorship you can be locked up or shot just for having the wrong book, or if they are thinking you used to have it.

I've more great books than I can ever read without violating copyright.

First world problems...

[Sarmat89]

It is funny how much effort it took to finally shut that blatant piracy outlet down.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by Sarmat89

It is funny how much effort it took to finally shut that blatant piracy outlet down.

That's because shutting down pirate sites is nearly always impossible. LibGen, Z-library, PirateBay are all alive and well, no matter how much effort was spent in fighting them. The result: zero.

[SteveEisenberg]

The way I read the permanent injunction (linked from here), it only covers copyrighted books that are both commercially available (ebook or paper) and where the title is on a list sent from the publisher to the Internet Archive. The Internet Archive has 14 days to comply with new lists.

This seems fair to me. The Internet Archive can still lend many out of print books under United States copyright.

P.S. This goes straight to the injunction:

https://www.publishersweekly.com/bin...006/6311-1.pdf

[ratinox]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

This seems fair to me. The Internet Archive can still lend many out of print books under United States copyright.

It's not strictly fair use, but Big Content can't trot out the lost sales argument for books they aren't selling. Next up: RIAA are going after IA now over long out of print 78 RPM shellac digitizing.

[Quoth]

It depends on when the 78 was published, when artists or writers died etc. New 78s still issued in 1950s.
The microgroove 33 & 45 about 1950.
And many 78s re-issued as 33, 45 and later CD.

[ratinox]

Originally Posted by Quoth

It depends on when the 78 was published, when artists or writers died etc. New 78s still issued in 1950s.
The microgroove 33 & 45 about 1950.
And many 78s re-issued as 33, 45 and later CD.

Maybe, but it seems more a matter of Matt Oppenheim being Matt Oppenheim. If you don't recognize the name, he's the... RIAA attorney who convinced Metallica to say "Napster bad".

Aside: Lars Ulrich is on record, some years later and somewhat sheepishly, acknowledging that anything which helps get his music to fans living under repressive regimes is a good thing.