Today’s lower court decision in Hachette v. Internet Archive is a blow to all libraries and the communities we serve. This decision impacts libraries across the US who rely on controlled digital lending to connect their patrons with books online. It hurts authors by saying that unfair licensing models are the only way their books can be read online. And it holds back access to information in the digital age, harming all readers, everywhere.
But it’s not over—we will keep fighting for the traditional right of libraries to own, lend, and preserve books. We will be appealing the judgment and encourage everyone to come together as a community to support libraries against this attack by corporate publishers.
We will continue our work as a library. This case does not challenge many of the services we provide with digitized books including interlibrary loan, citation linking, access for the print-disabled, text and data mining, purchasing ebooks, and ongoing donation and preservation of books.
Statement from Internet Archive founder, Brewster Kahle:
“Libraries are more than the customer service departments for corporate database products. For democracy to thrive at global scale, libraries must be able to sustain their historic role in society—owning, preserving, and lending books.
This ruling is a blow for libraries, readers, and authors and we plan to appeal it.”
Take Action!
Stand up for libraries 
Stand up for the digital rights of all libraries! Join the Battle for Libraries: https://www.battleforlibraries.com/
Support the Internet Archive 
Support the Internet Archive to continue fighting for libraries in court!
Stay connected 
Sign up for the Empowering Libraries newsletter for ongoing updates about the lawsuit and our library.
Here’s the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth that I’m gonna tell Hachette that I warn everyone No infringements of any kind is intended. So once again The Internet Archive is not guilty or suspicious. That’s why I always stand with the Internet Archive. Not Hachette. I’m sorry for the inconvenience so I can’t research or preserve anything without the Internet Archive. I can only stick with the Internet Archive. I get a help from the Internet Archive. and I also always stand up for the digital rights of all libraries of the world! although I didn’t have money to donate yet. But I add everything to my favorites. By the way tell Hachette that I’ve been waiting for a Warner Bros. 100th Anniversary Book this year and I’ll get it off from ebay.
Yes, it is truly real that this organization is innocent and educational. It has all the collection of books and other works that are completely educational.
Of course it is and I always agree that no infringement of any kind is intended. Including Copyright.
You are ignorant of copyright laws. Your INTENT means nothing. When you steal copyrighted material and post it for free you are still stealing and violating copyright even if your “intent” is not to… although i believe 100% you are lying about your “intent” anyway.
Archive.org has some really good cultural and historical content but it is NOT by any stretch of the imagination a “library.”
What “library” Let’s children view hardcore pornography and Muslim mullahs rant endlessly? What library allows obviously stolen content to sit for years on its shelves?
This isn’t a library. It’s a dumping ground for stolen content.
And archives can be both. Which is what this is.
You are a sheep, standing up for the Big guy, how brave you are
Cringe.
I’m with you.
He’s a corporate shill. They don’t care for copyrights or profits. Their ultimage plan is to censor information that doesn’t fit their narratives. This has been in the making for years now. This plan is far more nefarious than people realize.
I agree, there is a war on information.
Yes. Public libraries are under attack, too. The censorious will do whatever it takes to limit access to perspectives not their own. I don’t know if Hachette, themselves, are concerned with more than just profit, but I would definitely not be surprised to learn so.
David Lynch, stop Lynching what you do not understand.
Any attack against the Internet Archive is part of a larger coordinated plan to silence truth, particularly any knowledge that will inform a resistance to the Satanic New World Order that is growing in these coming years.
When America is destroyed in 2028, and the military boot crushes your balls, THEN you will understand. Not before.
The Internet Archive must never give in to any forms of censorship whatsoever. But if Internet Archive fails, as it has occasionally done in the past, then many others will continue its mission.
Truth will win on earth, one way or another. How much of it you can learn for yourself is in part the noble mission of web sites like Internet Archive.
You have no idea how valuable the content is on this web site, and the magnitude of the forces that seek to destroy that content, so hold your tongue.
Actually he is merely a troll using the new of a world famous Horror Film Director, who is the kindest old man on earth who loves to make violent films, So I know why he chose that name, to 2 x troll fans of David Lynch as well as be a general troll. David Lynch is 78 and currently making a film, you can check his website if you want.
You said: “When America is destroyed in 2028”, I am curious, can yo please elaborate?
America will not be destroyed in 2028. You must have been watching WaterWorld.
The truth will not win, it will simply outlive her opponents
Oh yes it will. Its not like it was rise and fall or something.
Watch your language. There is no New World Order. Its just a conspiracy theory that hypothesizes a secretly emerging totalitarian world government.
Any attack. They’re supposed to coordinated plan to silence lie. That disaster will never grow in these coming years. Internet Archive does not and will never fail. It will continue its mission.
Oh yeah and you need to stop swearing and cussing with that B-Word to the americans.
I’m the only one who has the idea how valuable the content is on this web site. Every web site.
I’ll be seek to destroy that blasted magnitude of the forces. in an effort to let the Truth will win on earth, one way or another once we come to it.
I never thought I’d hear David advocate taking down the “really weird stuff” from the internets because it makes him uncomfortable. But here we are!
> Archive.org has some really good cultural and historical content but it is NOT by any stretch of the imagination a “library.”
The state of California disagrees: https://old.post-gazette.com/pg/07175/796164-96.stm
If you honestly believe with all your heart that the Internet Archive is not a library, lobby the California State Government to get its library status revoked. Until then, it’s a library.
False, the Internet Archive is indeed a digital library. A library is defined as “a collection of materials, books or media that are accessible for use and not just for display purposes.”
Please, do explain how you believe its not a library.
David, Open Library is a part of the Internet Archive that allows people to digitally check out books for a short period of time. It is, or at least was, a registered library. There are many other libraries that have similar features who will now be targetted with similar lawsuits that will cripple the existence of libraries in general. Your “think of the children” comment is unrelated to the topic at hand and shows how little you know about Open Library and just libraries in general. Yes, libraries have books that some might deem taboo or offensive. From American Psycho to Huckleberry Finn, these books exist and are available at libraries. Wether they get into the hands of children isn’t the fault of the Internet Archive but the stupidity of parents for not moderating their child’s behaviour. You can’t silence freedom of speech based upon wether you think something is appropriate for children because news flash: somethings aren’t made for children and were never intended for children. So saying “think of the children!” over content not made nor intended for children is silly and is just a weak-man’s way of saying he hates freedom of speech and views that appose his own. Also a “Mullah” is just an Islamic priest. There’s nothing horrifying about that. “Oh no, a Rabbi!” is how silly you sound.
Funilly enough I bet David would be first in line if someone wanted to remove Huckleberry Finn from a library. After all, it isn’t offensive to him so it MUST be fine.
Archive.org is not a library, and a digital book isn’t a book either. So whatever ramblings you think makes you right only work against you.
If you read it its a book and if all the books are located in one place physical or digital then it is a library! You know nothing John Snow
The internet belongs to those who build it… Your law doesn’t apply here. There are other way to capitalize on media besides directly charging for it… Perhaps you should quit being lazy and come up with some.
Stop being a shill. Clearly they don’t just want the books gone, they want all the saved internet pages gone too. Then no one will be able to prove that “hey, remember that one person or organization said this thing and now they’re denying it?” There will be no backup, no proof of the lies they told.
I, and many others would never accept that. The librarians and information people of the world will out cast and there will be dozens of underground archives. What publishers like Hachette are doing is demonic.
In other words we should close all libraries in the world
right
You sound like a mad washed up Amazon author. I’m an author and this website is actually crucial for my research.
Take your hate elsewhere.
If they physically possess copies of a book, scan it, and make the scan readable to as few people as they own copies of at any one time, then how is it in any way different than a library? If some library has a book on its shelf, and wishes to have IA house a virtual copy of it, how is someone virtually checking it out in any way different than the library sending the physical copy to someone as an interlibrary loan?
Can you answer that, David Lynch?
Its not David Lynch, David Lynch is a famous American film maker, he is 78 yrs old and is currently working on another film, he does daily weather reports on his youtube channel and is extremely extremely nice and into drugs sex and violence, hes also a painter sculptor and has acted in the Family Guy cartoon, spin-off series “The Cleveland Show” as “Gus the Bartender” because his son is a fan of Family Guy.
If theft/copyright laws can be applied to online non-physical items, then online non-physical libraries shuold also be a thing.
There is hardly any porn on archive and it requires an account anyways.
Islamic scholars are a part of what this website archives, because it doesn’t block out non-government friendly narratives.
Which library lets children view hardcore pornography? or “muslim mullahs rent endlessly”?
Well, not only do libraries, but furthermore schools use to show things which, when I was a child, would have been regarded as dirty pornography — today it’s called gender education, or the like stuff. And anyway, TV uses to broadcast “culture” movies with bestiality (The Beast, by Walerian Borowicz, producer Anatole Dauman, the beast being an actor in beast disguise; Max my Love, director Nagisha Ōshima, producer Serge Silberman, suggested bestiality) or paedophilia scenes (a few seconds of In the Realm of the Senses, director Nagisha Ōshima, producer Anatole Dauman). The books of Sade, explaining how to rape chidren, and how they react in a rape (he was a rapist, of both adults and children), are being sold in any shop in my country.
What about mullahs? A mullah is a religious shia muslim; but shias are either a small part of muslim world and special victims of jihad, so using them as a scre-crow proves either lack of knowmedge or lack of honesty. Anyway, if fanatism is the key problem, then the massive destruction weapon of the imperialist lyings is the first problem. Jihad is no more than an auxiliary part of it.
Using such examples to refer to copyright laws gives evidence that what is the real point is, in fact, censorship: anyone believing juvenile access to pornography or censorship against persecuted muslims (and thus implicit support to imperialist-sunni jihadism collusion) are “copyright laws” is joking, or is lying.
I don’t want courts to rule about my right to access whatever information I might wish to find, not even the most hateful ones. Not even Powell and us anthrax lyings, not even Tsahal and its shameless use of white phosphorus in cities, nor information about what Mrs Albright said about Iraqi children. No court shall have the right to interfer with information.
Regarding copyright laws, I don’t understand what will be improved here. Sorry.
Have you never been to a real life library before?
Pornography you can easily find on the shelves, and religious content as well.
Not to mention most libraries take donations, which they do not check if the book was stolen. The internet archive BOUGHT every book they have, which is even better than what most libraries do.
A neanderthal complaining fire should be banned for not behaving like clubs.
It is true the the Internet Archive lets children watch porn, the only way to stop that from happening is to perhaps have a check to determine whether you are visiting a porn website in IA. BUT that means the IA would have to spy on what archived websites that you go to on it, it is just another excuse to undermine the freedom that the Internet Archive provides.
The Internet Archive in my opinion should be defended at all costs, it is a very valuable resource and has helped many people, sure, there is some copyrighted content on it, but really only that copyrighted content should’ve been taken down and not the entire Internet Archive and all the legal content.
if your a child then get off this website, your not legally allowed to be here. Goodbye
Take your pro corporate cronyism elsewhere. It’s not welcome here. and neither are you.
I dont think you understand that 90% of the material that isnt educational is uploaded by users from around the world and it is not the Archive’s fault for what users say/do/upload.
For example, a few of my friends are musical artists, and they upload their music here and let people download it, even if it is copyrighted, because thats what they want.
Users have the right to view and put whatever they want here, cry about it.
I dont think you understand that 90% of the material that isnt educational is uploaded by users from around the world and it is not the Archive’s fault for what users say/do/upload.
For example, a few of my friends are musical artists, and they upload their music here and let people download it, even if it is copyrighted, because thats what they want.
Users have the right to view and put whatever they want here, cry about it.
Dave, you know that the search results default to “most downloaded”?
If the boobies burn your eyeballs, you can easily sort by title or date uploaded.
Pity your username is the director behind Dune and The Elephant Man (great films).
The same man who said, “If we didn’t want to upset anyone, we would make films about sewing, but even that could be dangerous”. Do you think porn and Muslims are dangerous, Davey?
And “think of the children”? Really? Do you think children are the only ones who frequent libraries? It’s very VERY obvious that YOU have not been a public library for years, if ever. Do you think librarians are dangerous, Daveydoo?
this is a library … search the meaning please … a collection of books held in a library, a digital library on line, is all that we need in these times …
What makes you believe that achieve.org is not a library and what constitutes copyright infringement. Clearly there is no infringement involved and you are blind to that.
I learned it from one of my YouTube users, beginning of one of their videos and one of their descriptions.
That’s what makes me believe that achieve.org was a library and what constitutes no copyright infringement. Clearly there is no infringement.
I’m sorry but i do not steal copyrighted material and violating it. Because it is not intended.
I agree, the Internet Archive is most valuable, providing immediate access to worldwide literature that you would not be able to find in a normal library building.
why a physical library has the right to exist and a digital one does not?
Thanks, lads. Do what you can. There is a massive effort to archive as well. If it has to be decentralized, then so be it, but we’d rather that not happen.
That might be worse. Your only media would be stodgy, uncompetitive movies and the black market. Could we stop the 2020s MTV or YouTube from showing ISIS recruiting videos?
Just wow, has the judge know that some books in a physical library have licensed digital versions as well? This means they are trying to retroactively apply licensing schemes to physical books just because those books have a licensed version.
They have forgotten one important aspect, licensing restrictions that override copyright’s limitation only happens to the person or organization if that entity have signed the binding agreement. You cannot apply such licensing restrictions that overrides fair use to any entity that didn’t agree to the binding agreement.
If a person can’t afford a book then he have right to read it online what’s wrong with this.
Knowledge is necessary for everyone.
Slaves are not allowed to know, own, or say anything.
The point is that the publishing industry–owned by the likes of Robert Maxwell–has turned knowledge into real estate, and they want to control it all, setting up toll roads and licensing and all manner of rentier/profit seeking mechanisms at every juncture and turn.
This is not what the Founders of the US republic had in mind. They set things up so that for a fixed period (originally 14 years), creators could hold the rights to their creations, and profit from those, but after that it reverted to the public, to spur innovation, learning, and creativity.
That model has been systematically undermined my entire life (I’m 55) with erosion after erosion of US copyright/patent law, and particularly rewriting US law to align with the monopolistic models in the EU.
They even ginned up something called “intellectual property law” as a field whereby American citizens seeking to access information under fair use provisions of the Copyright Act see worse recriminations, fines, and punishments than those who commit murder.
Open information is, at bottom, a threat to their global rentier-based real estate system. Not only do the paywalls (tolls on the information highways) enrich them, they seek a total monopoly on information content and flows.
Brewster and his team should be redpilling everyone on the history of the erosion of public access in all media…and how globalists have seized everything and now paywall it for their own riches. It’s not just a matter of the “fake news” MSM. This touches everything related to mediated content, in all media. The monopolists STILL haven’t gotten over the invention of the printing press…so the Internet has really chapped their glutes.
The only thing I can see changing this is the US reverting to our original law, which held that corporate charters must be sunsetted after 7 years, unless the corporation in question presents a compelling reason to extend that charter, in the eyes of the citizens of the state that granted the charter.
If in the end you lose the war… have you everything from sites to software backed up? Please come back one day if you do end up losing. You’ve got to, for the sake of libraries and innocent people who care about the future.
It was nice knowing you, IA. Time to shut down.
Welcome to the Age of our corporate overlords, where information is paywalled.
One day, someone will look back on history and see is a black wall of nothing. for History has been erased by power-hungry old men and women.
KEEP FIGHTING THE GOOD FIGHT!
Thanks. for loud a free books about humanities.
I hope they have a card up their sleeve in case injustice wins.
They should publish all government requests for information and interactions publicly on wikileaks if they are forced to shut down in the future.
What will happen to software, magazines and videos?
I don’t think those will be affected unless IA get’s sued for a lot of money.
I think not Hachette is the one who is getting sued for a lot of money.
“Judge John G. Koeltl decided that the Internet Archive had done nothing more than create “derivative works,” and so would have needed authorization from the books’ copyright holders — the publishers — before lending them out through its National Emergency Library program.”
They simply temporally remove the download limits of the books, retaining all other restrictions like preventing patrons from re-distributing the books and having a time limit before they become inaccessible on the user’s device. This merely acts as a temporary access, even after the NEL was shut down, users cannot keep it.
“there is nothing transformative about [Internet Archive’s] copying and unauthorized lending,” and that copying these books doesn’t provide “criticism, commentary, or information about them.”
The CDL system MUST have a copy (you cannot digitally lend out a physical book without digitizing it) but distributes as if there aren’t any unauthorized copies. And libraries don’t have to have criticism, commentary, or information about them in order to lend them. When a physical library obtains a book via buying them or via donations, they just register it to their system and have it on the bookshelf for anyone to read it, no changes to that book besides putting a due date of when to return.
“there was no direct evidence, and that it was “irrelevant” that the Internet Archive had purchased its own copies of the books before making copies for its online audience”
You cannot held the IA liable for simply running the CDL system and not having evidence of purchasing its own copies, they can obtain books via donations by other people. If whoever have stolen the book (shoplift, went to some shady site to obtain it illegally) prior to donating it to the IA, only that person should be held liable, the IA would be unaware of this person’s act. Furthermore, there must be proof that the IA knowingly and willfully obtain books from an illegal source, else this violates the Presumption of innocence, which implied via amendments Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth. See this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence
Also, copyright law does not and should not automatically retroactively prohibit libraries from lending out physical books when those books have a licensed e-book version, such restrictions only apply when the licensing schemes’ terms are agreed. If the library owns it, they own it, not somehow license it just because the ebook version later exists. The judge seems to forget the role of libraries that they obtain books and lend them out doesn’t have any licensing scheme at all.
The same should also apply to CDL. Don’t assume that “if it is digitized by the publishers, then digitization by libraries too are licensed”.
Hi , so what’s going to happen next, all copyright books will be removed from IA ? no more borrowing books ?
Pingback: New York federal judge shoots down online e-book lending | Courthouse News Service
It hurts authors by saying that unfair licensing models are the only way their books can be read online.
So what’s stopping IA from getting a licence?
I spend time at IA daily and donate monthly. That said, after reading the pingback RPLA offered above, I understand the judge’s decision. If libraries have to by law enter into licencing agreements to operate, then what makes IA so special? IA is special to me, and I derive great joy visiting there. My feeling for it doesn’t change the law, right?
I rely on you literally *every day* since a while to research some old books that are way too expensive to order and in 0 library around me. The closest public library with the book am reading now is in Spain. Another country entirely. I do not know what I’ll do without your website. This is legit making me sad.
I think the Internet Archive should cut a deal with the publishers. As users, we pay a small subscription fee annually, and part of that revenue goes back to the publishers, so we can continue to read their books.
No thank you. You are not seeing the nefarious intention behind attacking the Internet Archive. You are excusing the wound because you are blind to the war at hand. Maybe you should watch this video on the Internet Archive for a clue:
https://archive.org/details/jfk_secret_societies
Recently, the major publishers won the right to limit the number of downloads libraries could authorize before being required to purchase a new copy of the ebook. They already charge more for “library editions” of print books on the grounds they’re sturdier or some such thing. The saddest thing is that they’ve managed to persuade their authors to back up their price-gouging (I’m a publisher; I know what it costs to print books and format ebooks) “to protect their right to earn from their work”.
Do you really think agreeing to pay a fee would have any impact on that level of corporate greed?
That is exactly what the publishing monopoly wants to happen. A paywall to prevent digital access to borrowed material without our having to pay for it first. Brick and mortar libraries LEND copyrighted materials to the public (just like online libraries do) and we don’t have to pay when we borrow these materials from brick and mortar libraries, in spite of the fact that BOTH types of libraries PURCHASE the copyrighted materials they lend to the public. In reality, this lawsuit is nothing more than the creation of absolute control over, and the limitation of, the flow of information.
like scribd.com
Soon this site will be completely destroyed and shut down.
Time to wave the white flag.
Nobody who cares about the Internet Archive should ever buy another book from Hatchette, ever. No matter what the title. Don’t feed the beast. You stopped buying CD’s 15 years ago to punish the RIAA for their failed filesharing lawsuits, not it’s time to stop buying Hatchette’s books. They’re only good for toilet paper anyway, and you can get that cheaper at the grocery store
HACHETTE BOOK GROUP, INC.,
HARPERCOLLINS PUBLISHERS LLC,
JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC., and
PENGUIN RANDOM HOUSE LLC
https://www.eff.org/document/hachette-v-internet-archive-internet-archives-reply-iso-summary-judgment
But even better, the authors who publish through those publishers are pissed off at the publishers and should cancel their contracts and use another publisher instead.
Stick it to them where it hurts: right in the greed they indecently publicly exposed to the world.
Thanks, I will be cancelling their marketing emails. Sadly, I have already purchased more books than I can read at this point.
New York is one of the most fascist states in the Union. Their government is completely out of control and their people are more like feudal subjects than voting citizens with Constitutional rights. If you want to know whose running New York, (a.k.a. “The Empire State”), go to the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation website. They host an annual dinner that our politicians attend. Their Presidential election-year dinners, which are held in October before the elections take place, are particularly important events. In 2016, ABC15 Arizona aired that year’s Al Smith dinner and afterward released it on youtube on their official channel under the title, “FULL: Alfred Smith Charity Dinner – Trump & Clinton’s first face to face post debate”. The introduction of the guests, beginning at min. 43:30, are extremely revealing. For anyone who wants to know the power structure within the United States, I recommend they watch that video.
A sad day indeed
Strange that the legal doctrine of standing isn’t addressed by this rogue New York judge at all. After all, it would be difficult for any court to find standing in the absence of actual damages. Folks, be very clear what this is about. It is about the publishing houses efforts to do with books what technology conglomerates have done with software, namely eliminate the idea of ownership. Most of you know none of us OWN our copy of Microsoft Windows. We license it. Publishers and corporate authors want this model for the books we buy, since that’s the business model that keeps on giving. First they came for our eBooks. Soon they’ll come for our print books, which they fancy to be little more than rentals. This system itself is lawless!
>still using wind*ws
@Quincy McGoo — Very well stated! Now we need to force a reversal.
I have benefited from the IA, but the truth is you have made unauthorized copies of copyrighted works. While you may criticize the publishers, this is also an issue for writers. And writers are workers like everyone else. The law seems quite clear on the matter.
Why don’t you try to find a compromise with the publishers? There are libraries that require a library card for book lending. For example, I used to pay a monthly fee for the National Library in Berlin.
You can just charge a fee for digital library cards and work out a financial deal with the publishers, like a Netflix for books. I would rather pay a fee and support writers than stand on shaky legal and moral ground as is the case now. It’s better to settle with the publishers and find a workable solution that can resolve this issue, than to get the library shut down by a court.
But what about ancient old orphan works and those that are long out of print?
I would suspect that most of the IA lending business is in these texts. How do you track down that ownership — if it still exists — and why aren’t THEY required to protest? Why Hatchett?
Again, this is an issue for Congress. They need to modernize in some way the presently held First Sale Doctrine. Which we should thank god exists, because this same crowd would already have closed down public libraries. Or made them pay a big license!
because the mission is to make knowledge free which implies not settling on compromises like this. hopefully getting a library shut down will start a rebellion or get people to pirate and deprive publishers off their revenues. because authors get pennies for every dollar the publishers make.
1. Writers do not benefit off of the licensing models as much as you may think. Oftentimes the publishers take a disproportionate amount of money and some writers may not even want their work published in that way. If you want to support writers as workers, it is detrimental to support the people they work under. The monthly fee you mentioned would not support the writers as much as you think.
2. libraries cannot be compared to streaming (referencing “Netflix for books” here) since they provide an important service to society beyond providing entertainment like Netflix does. They provide educational programs for children, refugees, senior citizens, and anyone else who might not have access to it otherwise, they offer a safe, warm space that is free to access even without money or paying for a library card, and so much more. Additionally, streaming services like Netflix exist to make money and always seek to maximize profit whereas libraries simply exist to provide a service to the public, similar to how public transport is not profitable but improve their surroundings nonetheless.
3. The law seems clear on the matter because corporations have a strong hand in the law due to lobbying. Copyright law favors corporations more than the creators themselves.
I strongly recommend here to read up on the social construct of crime (here is a twitter thread that offers a simplified explanation: https://twitter.com/djmckenna00/status/1269218616861437952?s=20
but it is of course better to read up on the concept with peer-reviewed works so you can form an educated unbiased opinion, if you can afford to pay for the hefty fees the publishers ask for
4. If you live in Germany like me (I assume so since you paid for a library card in Berlin?) then you should have had the education to know that making books (and therefor education) inaccessible to the general public is dubious at best. We have the history to know what restricting information can do and we cannot make the mistake to put books behind walls again. It might be tempting to say “oh but you can still access them, you just have to pay”, but that bars a group of considerable size from accessing basic education and the implications that has for our democracy are again, dubious at best.
You’re German, and you know better than most that a person negotiating with a Nazi means there are two Nazis. The publishers’ interests isn’t remuneration; it’s destruction.
A couple things. I know this is an issue for Congress, but what about the plight of orphan and out-of-print works that no publisher is EVER going to reissue? I would suspect that 95 percent + of these IA loans are such works.
Also, it sounds more like the judge was ruling against the Pandemic library that offered multiple uses of a work at one time. But only one now? How is that a big deal? And why aren’t the publishers required to prove harm?
I also agree with the claim that if these guys had their way now they’d be outlawing libraries as unfair “theft.” And getting away with it in the courts.
So what’s the future? Did the judge order a shutdown of the loan program?
they aren’t required to prove harm because copyright law already protects them.
I’m somewhat upset that IA isn’t telling us what exactly would be affect. Yes, are the orphan works going to be deleted too? What about the Wayback Machine? This to me is a deliberate destruction of history.
No, it won’t be that. The Wayback Machine will be ok, but I suspect the lending library itself and all the non-public domain books will no longer be available for viewing. I’m wondering if or when the ruling will require all takedowns of those materials.
Pingback: Links 25/03/2023: Decade of Docker, Azure Broken Again | Techrights
Decentralize it
Ask for community support for storage
I am willing to offer free storage for use and I am sure more people are in order to save this platform
They can not shut us all down
X
I can see your reason to decentralized it.
The fact that you have free storage is actually brilliant.
Perhaps you need to contact me, as I believe that I know who you are and exactly how you will go about it.
this is what I’ve been talking about for years already. IA may collapse just like the library of alexandria did
Totally amused by the comments of these inexperienced, ignorant children who think they have a right to steal just because, well, we can’t let the corporate overlords win.
The corporate overlords have the law and ethics on their side. Sorry Internet Archive you can’t have a web site made up 95% stolen content and claim to be a legitimate library.
Many years I have gleaned great historical material from this site, but always knowing it’s a treasure trove of theft of copyright so won’t be around forever.
There’s perhaps the “law” on their side, but ethics? Not so much. If you find the whole premise of IA so egregious, where are YOUR ethics in continuously taking advantage of its content for “many years” while being personally convinced of its “theft of copyright” position even so? You regularly take advantage of the use of others “Ill gotten gains” even though you personally know it to be illegal? Really? That puts your own ethics into significant suspicion here. I am then given to assume you will immediately cease and desist of such continued illegal behavior, given your high price on other’s ethics.
Stolen from whom? Un-traceable copyright holders from 70 years ago? That’s the stuff I borrow.
Is the public library down the street lending out purloined works too? Is the borrower stealing it?
By your logic, yes.
What logic? I don’t see a single bit of usable “logic” there. Just another corporate shill ready and willing to take advantage of the hard work of others, while being unwilling to support said efforts in the process. Yes, I take advantage of this marvelous service and have for years. BUT, not without making automatic monthly donations to their efforts. I don’t even have any interest in any contemporary works still under copyright protection such that I can find here.
No ethics shown either, given the view that all the work and the results are deemed “illegal” in the process, while certainly willing to cast aspersions on those of us who are doing basically the same thing he is. “All for me and none for thee” is apparently the “logic” being put forth here.
I.A. does no such damage to anyone. Even the concept of a physical library willing and able to deliver physical copies to one’s door is laughable in the global sphere – no physical library anywhere on the planet has every copy of every printed piece available to everyone who wishes to use it at the same time, in all the languages in which it is offered, and in all the places requesting it. I live in the Midwest, so if only one English print copy exists in a library in California, or Virginia, how am I going to pick it up and read it? If I want to use an available copy of a long-out of print volume, decades out of copyright, at 3:00 in the morning, I dare anyone to show me any other source who can provide such a service. And how many other people are reading that volume at the same time? It’s ludicrous.
It’s a library according to the state of California: https://old.post-gazette.com/pg/07175/796164-96.stm
If you don’t think it’s a library, take it up with Gavin Newsom.
>Totally amused by the comments of these inexperienced, ignorant children who think they have a right to steal just because, well, we can’t let the corporate overlords win.
>The corporate overlords have the law and ethics on their side.
Perhaps the law, that’s up to people more familiar with copyright law than I am & the legal system to settle. That’ll take time.
Ethics??? HA!
We have time and time again seen that corporations will try to get away with murder if there’s a buck in it for them. If it was legal, or if there was legal loopholes that made it likely for a corporate entity to want to try and make a profit off of it, you betcha it would only be a matter of time before an corporation would chop your grandmother up, can her remains and sell her as fishbait.
If you think this isn’t the case, and if you don’t think there’s a battle on to wring every single dollar out of whoever has a dollar on their pockets, every single last fraction of a percent of potential profit margin off the markets (white, grey, or otherwise) in any way possible, then you are the terribly historically ignorant child here and you should go sit in the corner with reddened cheeks.
-p
“Many years have [you] gleaned great historical material from this site”, yet somehow you feel you deserve to cast aspersions on the ‘ethics’ of other users of this invaluable resource
By definition, when one “steals” something, the victim is deprived of the goods that were “stolen”. Obviously that does not happen in this case. Its always funny to see how Americans have been brainwashed into applying the concept of “stealing” to situations where it doesn’t belong. Perhaps, looking up the history of how the American music labels came up with the idea of calling digital copying “stealing” or “piracy” for effect, since they were struggling in courts previous to that, would prevent you from making such laughable arguments. May I suggest that the IA to start, as it should have some resources on that
I think people have gotten away from that comparison. Just like they also got away from the idea that serial copyright extension is a good thing.
Maybe 25 years ago it was different. People naively accepted the argument that copyright infringement was the same as stealing your car. Just look at how no one has tried to push for copyright extension lately.
Copyright law is obsolete because it does not match the reality of the information age. Have them close as many archives as they want, it doesn’t matter. Ten more Shadow libraries will open up the next day. Digital storage is dirt cheap. Connectivity is getting cheaper by the year. If publishers want to pretend like they’re good capitalists, and not monopolistic cartel — they should try to actually adapt.
It most certainly is not theft; it is not even copyright infringement.
To be precise, it is the unauthorised reproduction of (potentially) copyrighted works, which does not infringe upon the “author’s” (publishers’) exclusive rights because it falls within the 17 USC S. 107 exemptions. This is exactly the same category that includes (for instance) Google’s unauthorised copying of the entire WWW, so in that sense you are entirely correct to say “corporate overlords have the law… on their side”; it is also why photocopying sheet music (so one can play a long piano piece without having an extra hand to turn the pages) and recording a movie to your DVR and skipping over the ads (Fox Broadcasting v. Dish Network) and many many other activities are also unauthorised copying that do not constitute infringement.
Guess you only publish comments that favor your side…
What are you talking about? Your inane comment is right there in the open. Works that are out of copyright have no business being involved in this case. They should stay, no one “owns” them anymore. Plus you know that the Wayback Machine will be affected by this if they have to pay monetary damages, so goodbye internet history, but all you care about is the “muh law”.
I want to keep internet Archive alive
Do you suppose that EVERYTHING that belongs in the archive are going to be no more if this battle ends in possible “failure”?
Just the lending library, but yes, how much. Orphan works too?
The courts won’t inevitably carve out an exemption for the un-traceable? Can they be legally encouraged to do so at this point?
I stand up tight. I stand high for the childhood memories I keep discovering almost every day. Anything lost will be found right here right now, and will remain that way.
This decision affects readers worldwide, and shouldn’t be up to one biased judge…who yet again takes the side of the “chosen” few, united by greed and desire to discriminate
I thank Internet Archive and its team for all the good work and services
GB
My friend is visually impaired and likes to read nonfiction. Not only does this site read aloud it also enables him to see high quality illustrations because he can zoom them. Regular eBooks do not compare to the scanned books available here. The search feature is AWESOME.
I believe that all the scanned works are available to the visually impaired. They can even be downloaded with specially obtained software — it’s on the webpage for each search.
It’s been that way for quite a while — those are not at issue now.
I write. I research heavily. Especially online. The half of it is having the Internet Archive. Without such a powerful free resource available I’m finished in many ways. Why? Because it’s just too costly to travel the great distances required in physical world that allow access to the specialized books and media I need to complete my work. I think a lot of people like myself are in the same position. I truly believe that the Internet Archive is not only one of the last stands of free libraries. But a free Internet in particular. Meaning every online website visited could require a fee or costly charge. Or else you will be thrown (to the sharks) into a hellish world of non-stop ads and commercials.
I write. I research heavily. Especially online. The half of it is having the Internet Archive. Without such a powerful free resource available I’m finished in many ways. Why? Because it’s just too costly to travel the great distances required in physical world that allow access to the specialized books and media I need to complete my work. I think a lot of people like myself are in the same position. I truly believe that the Internet Archive is not only one of the last stands of free libraries. But a free Internet in particular. Meaning every online website visited could require a fee or costly charge. Or else you will be thrown (to the sharks) into a hellish world of non-stop ads and commercials.
Espero que Internet Archive se mantenga en funcionamiento y gane el caso judicial. Internet Archive tiene todo lo que es DIFÍCIL de encontrar donde otros sitios web no lo hacen. Apoyo Internet Archive y Open Library.
¡Bien!
Pingback: Internet Archive violated publisher copyrights by lending ebooks, court rules | Engadget
“They paved paradise and put up a parking lot / With a pink hotel, a boutique, and a swinging hot spot / Don’t it always seem to go / That you don’t know what you got ’til it’s gone? / They paved paradise and put up a parking lot / They took all the trees and put ’em in a tree museum / And they charged the people a dollar and a half to see them…” — Counting Crows
Sorry, those lyrics were from Joni Mitchell originally. Google pranked me by putting Counting Crows as the artist in the Knowledge Panel about the song when I googled the lyrics.
As an AI language model, I am not able to express an opinion on ongoing legal matters or litigation. However, the statement from the Internet Archive founder highlights the importance of libraries in society and their role in preserving and providing access to knowledge and cultural heritage. The Internet Archive and libraries across the US have been providing valuable services through controlled digital lending, allowing patrons to access books that may be out of print or otherwise unavailable, while limiting the number of digital copies that can be checked out at any one time to match the number of physical copies owned by the participating libraries.
The decision in the Hachette v. Internet Archive case raises important questions about the balance between copyright law and the public interest in accessing information and preserving cultural heritage. It remains to be seen how the case will be resolved, but it is a reminder of the challenges faced by libraries and cultural institutions in the digital age. The statement from the Internet Archive founder also highlights the importance of continuing to support libraries in their mission to serve their communities and provide access to knowledge and cultural heritage.
The Internet Archive is a crucial resource for preserving and providing access to digital history, promoting education and innovation, supporting a free and open internet, and providing resources for legal and policy debates. Its digital library helps to document the evolution of the internet and provides access to historical information that may have otherwise been lost. The Archive promotes lifelong learning and contributes to a more informed society. It fosters innovation and creativity by providing access to historical information, and it helps to prevent “digital decay” by preserving content for future generations. The Archive is also committed to promoting an open and accessible internet, and it has played a critical role in legal cases and policy debates. It is essential to continue supporting and preserving the Internet Archive for the benefit of future generations.
im with you guys
I would just give up.
i hate life
No need to give up the Internet Archive they will win this appeal.
I’m doubtful. The deck is stacked against the IA.
Unfortunately true.
But never say never, you never know what can happen. Anything is possible.
I’m curious about one thing here too.
One legal authority I read said that this only involves about 170 cited works, and that Hatchett would have a helluva time going after it all — that those would require separate actions, and so don’t worry too much.
Is this true? What are the immediate plans of the IA here? Did the judge effectively shut the whole lending library down, so that on Monday it will all have disappeared?
I wish IA would publish a statement on this, they’re not being forthcoming with what will be deleted.
Link????
It goes back to the IA policy to begin with. If a copyright claim is made the person who uploaded it has time to prove no copyright claim otherwise IA will take it down. It’s an administrative function for IA.
It may not be though. There could soon be a follow-up injunction to shut the whole lending library down. Not being a lawyer, I don’t know how this works, or if Hatchett would have standing to think they represent all copyright holders everywhere. Or if this judge thinks they do.
I’m also confused why more legal stress was not made on the fact that most of the IA scans are of very old orphan and out-of-print works. I also suspect that this is most of IA’s business.
The publishers would obviously be willing to set up a deal like what ASCAP and BMI have, where they get a generic licensing fee on everything. That must be what they’re pushing for.
How many books that are going to be removed from IA are we talking about?
I am major believer in & supporter of IA. That said, I also understand & respect the publishers side of things. You could forgo a great deal of legal grief if you only uploaded books that are out of print or that have the author’s permission.
I believe that all the scanned works are available to the visually impaired. They can even be downloaded with specially obtained software — it’s on the webpage for each search.
It’s been that way for quite a while — those are not at issue now.
I am major believer in & supporter of IA. That said, I also understand & respect the publishers side of things. You could forgo a great deal of legal grief if you only uploaded books that are out of print or that have the author’s permission.
The ruling is what the judge has determined not Hachette. It seems many people falsely think that because something is on the Internet, it is free. Not so. If you want a hard copy of a book or magazine, most libraries will deliver a copy to your door. When you download an unauthorized e-book, you deprive the author of his residuals, plain and simple. It’s no different than with music. No one is entitled to free use of someone’s property without expressed permission. Copyright laws exist for a reason. Obviously this is lost on many people who simply feel entitled. Try making a living from being an author, then perhaps you may wake up.
It’s incredibly big-city centric, western and priviledged thinking. Pretty much in any other place than big city in rich and developed western country, you have to buy these books and magazines on the internet, often from western countries for higher prices due to currency exchange and with ridiculous shipping costs and many libraries won’t buy them for many reasons – cost or very niche subject for an example. Lots of these books and magazines are often locked behind university libraries where only students and staff can access them, compared to your usual library.
National Emergency Library was a disaster that will lock millions of these eBooks which worked finely with CDL and guess only visually impaired might be only people who’ll access them from now.
How is downloading different than a library delivering it to my door? The author isn’t getting any extra money on either.
Dear Internet Archive:
This litigation you face is simply a planned step in the destruction of Western Civilization by the Satanic cults behind the New World Order. Simply, it is a coordinated effort by enemy-owned Marxist unions and foreign governments that own the United States.
Look at the groups that are attacking Internet libraries and burning down physical libraries and churches, and you will see this in its correct context. Your destruction is simply one step in their war against all mankind. It has been planned for a long time, and independent research by an individual who pays attention will show that this Satanic cult is not shy about broadcasting their plans for us all, including “YOU WILL OWN NOTHING AND BE HAPPY”. Internet Archive, your work must be destroyed in the modern war against Western Civilization. But the enemy plans for their failure to do so; they want “isolated communities” with the censored Internet as an “echo chamber”. Make no mistake: this is a literal war that we face, and the invading troops will be coming once the stage is set.
These are the evil adversaries who have publicly exposed their hand in this legal attack you face; with a wartime discipline that JFK called on the public to have (https://archive.org/details/jfk_secret_societies), EVERYONE absolutely MUST boycott these groups and never again support them in any way, shape, or form; note that “international” is code for “globalist” and “New World Order”, and they have LITERALLY INFINITE MONEY AND INFINITE POLITICAL INFLUENCE criminally backing them while they take down America piece by piece; these groups are TREASONOUS and GUILTY OF INTERNATIONAL WAR CRIME in their active measures against freedom of thought on earth:
HACHETTE BOOK GROUP, INC.,
HARPERCOLLINS PUBLISHERS LLC,
JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC.,
PENGUIN RANDOM HOUSE LLC,
THE AUTHORS GUILD, INC.,
WESTERN WRITERS OF AMERICA,
CANADIAN AUTHORS ASSOCIATION,
AMERICAN PHOTOGRAPHIC ARTISTS,
THE WRITERS’ UNION OF CANADA,
INTERNATIONAL AUTHORS FORUM,
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MEDIA PHOTOGRAPHERS,
ROMANCE WRITERS OF AMERICA,
SOCIETY OF CHILDREN’S BOOK WRITERS AND ILLUSTRATORS,
EUROPEAN WRITERS COUNCIL,
NATIONAL WRITERS UNION,
GRAPHIC ARTISTS GUILD,
AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR COLLECTIVE RIGHTS LICENSING,
SOCIETY OF AUTHORS,
SISTERS IN CRIME,
INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF JOURNALISTS,
DRAMATISTS GUILD OF AMERICA,
NATIONAL PRESS PHOTOGRAPHERS ASSOCIATION,
NOVELISTS INC.,
ASSOCIATION OF AUTHORS AGENTS,
THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF JOURNALISTS AND AUTHORS,
THE UNION DES ÉCRIVAINES ET DES ÉCRIVAINS QUÉBÉCOIS,
EUROPEAN VISUAL ARTISTS,
INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION,
FEDERATION OF EUROPEAN PUBLISHERS,
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL AND MEDICAL PUBLISHERS,
INTERNATIONAL CONFEDERATION OF SOCIETIES OF AUTHORS AND COMPOSERS,
INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF FILM PRODUCERS ASSOCIATIONS,
INTERNATIONAL VIDEO FEDERATION,
INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE PHONOGRAPHIC INDUSTRY,
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP: Elizabeth A. McNamara, Linda J. Steinman, John M. Browning, Jesse Feitel, Carl Mazurek, 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 21st Floor, New York, NY 10020, (212) 489-8230,
Attorney Oppenheim + Zebrak, LLP: Scott A. Zebrak (pro hac vice), Matthew J. Oppenheim, Danae Tinelli (pro hac vice), 4530 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20016, (202) 480-2999,
COWAN, DeBAETS, ABRAHAMS & SHEPPARD LLP: Nancy E. Wolff, Alexander Gigante, Elizabeth Safran, 41 Madison Avenue, 38th Floor, New York, New York 10010, (212) 974-7474
And a special thanks to MICHELLE M. WU, LIBRARY FUTURES INSTITUTE, EVERYLIBRARY INSTITUTE, READERSFIRST, KENNETH D. CREWS, KEVIN L. SMITH, AUTHORS ALLIANCE, INC., ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION, DURIE TANGRI LLP, and anonymous scholars and law professors for intelligently advocating freedom as AMICUS CURIAE and legal representatives for the Internet Archive. https://www.eff.org/document/hachette-v-internet-archive-amicus-brief-michelle-wu
https://www.eff.org/document/hachette-v-internet-archive-amicus-brief-library-futures-institute-everylibrary-institute
https://www.eff.org/document/hachette-v-internet-archive-amicus-brief-kenneth-crews-and-kevin-smith
https://www.eff.org/document/hachette-v-internet-archive-amicus-brief-intellectual-law-professors
https://www.eff.org/document/hachette-v-internet-archive-amicus-brief-authors-alliance
https://www.eff.org/document/achette-v-internet-amicus-brief-13-copyright-scholars
https://www.eff.org/document/hachette-v-internet-archive-internet-archives-opposition-motion-summary-judgment
America is under attack. The entire world of men who desire to live is under attack. Good luck, Internet Archive. We will be watching.
Internet Archive should offer publishing contracts so authors can boycott the plaintiffs and their amicus curiae.
Poor Chris is going to have to get a real job now instead of riding the coat tails of creators. IA’s days of ripping off the publishers is over and good riddace. Libraries my ass. IA is a group of common crooks.
What real job?
What real job?! I’d rather become a political activist?
Ok which publisher paid you? You can’t be a real person. Also the state of California classifies this as a library, so yeah.
Your work is awesome. Internet should be the power of knowledge. But as everything ends up, it’s becoming the power of big company and interests
Believe it or not a lot of publishers only file an application for copyright so they can put the copyright ©️ symbol. They never follow up on the application because they are greedy and that would cost money. Then it costs money to get IA to take it down but the publisher has no proof to back it up. This is why this case has seen no change in checking out a book on IA. You can still do it.
Copyright is automatically attached to a work now. No need to file anything since about 1978. The law was changed. You only do so now to get a fixed record if you want, but it’s not necessary.
Support it
Internet Archive Founder, Brewster Kahle
Internet Archive
300 Funston Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94118
Brewster Kahle, Monday, September 12th, 2022
I am a writer, that is either a gift or a curse (I tend to veer towards curse), subsequently a letter is protocol. Obviously, the problem with a letter is that it has to be written, and last time I checked, no one is going to do my writing for me. Which means, to send you a donation, I have to get off my butt (of course butts and writing have nothing to do with one another), and write this letter.
I have in mind a topic I have wanted to touch on for a long time.
I am, what they probably would have called in the olden days, poor.
“Hay, hoe, nobody home.”
“Meat no, drink no, money have I none.”
“But when will I be mar…arr… arr… arr… ar…ried?”
A round my mother taught me, aptly suited, that I presently wear.
I have a message for all those book publishers, etc, who are suing Internet Archive for providing text, literature, books, written material, etc, to people like me, who otherwise would not have access to such material.
“You are biting the hand that feeds you.”
The next Great American Novel is not going to come from an empty bookshelf, or the digital equivalence.
Book publishers, etc, I cannot afford your books, and to be honest, my local library cannot afford your books either. In addition, just about every digital library, for example at a university, needs some type of participation, attendance, membership, etc, to access the full range of that digital library. I am not a member of the club. For there lack of money, contacts, etc, it is not going to happen.
Honestly, book publishers, etc, your next Great American million selling Novel, is not going to come from a member of that club, either.
It is going to come from a nobody poor slop like me, whose only access to a wide range of books, is via Internet Archive.
Book publishers, etc, suing Internet Archive, you have lost your way, lost your understanding of what writing is all about.
“The gnawing that comes from not writing, that forces you to keep stabbing at that beast writing, a beast that will never be slain, nor satisfied, no matter how many carcasses of your writing that you feed it.”
——Did I write that, or am I stealing it from an author, and not giving due credit to that author, I will let you decide?
That is what writing is all about, words on paper singing sweet music into your ears.
Book publishers, etc, ask yourself, where does that sweet music come from? It certainly does not come from an empty bookshelf, or the digital equivalence.
It comes from a hunger, a need to write, that you will never find in the posh circles of universities, academia, and the well to do, that can afford that circle of influence, and can afford your books.
“A pedigree, a writer, does not make.”
——Yoda.
Book publishers, etc, your next Great American million selling Novel is going to come from a poor slop like me who depends on Internet Archive for their writing fix, and when they OD on that writing fix, you will have your next Great American million selling Novel. Thus, the Circle Of Life continues…
Suing Internet Archive, is biting the hand that feeds you.
Sincerely,
Tracey Starr (Airdnaxela)
A BEAUTIFULLY written comment. Thank you!
Libraries are FREE PUBLICITY for authors. Librarians invite authors to do talks. (Go to your nearest public library and express interest in doing a program- I can almost guarantee they will be THRILLED!). Librarians will RECOMMEND books to readers who they think would be interested. Libraries, whether physical or digital, have to be able to AFFORD these works in order to read and recommend them. I agree with you, these publishers are biting the hand that feeds them. The hand that will feed them FREE INTERNATIONAL COVERAGE AND PUBLICITY for their “products” (most publishers do not understand that they deal in ART, they simply see “product”).
EVERYBODY deserves to get swept away by a story that touches their heart, that makes them laugh, that makes them think. You shouldn’t have to pay for this experience if you cannot afford to. If a story makes an impact and you CAN do so, of course you will go and support the artist. Even those who read their books for free will take that story, make it part of their life, and when they interact with others, they can say, “this book made me a better person…here is the name of that book, here is the name of the artist”.
I wish I could purchase a drive with the entirety of what’s on this site
If I was a billionaire, I would buy an offline copy of internet archive. For preservation, just in case.
Do not give up Internet Archive, you will win this appeal.
Solution to the problem that benefits all parties:
1. IA solicits donations of multiple copies of popular books.
2. After making one scan IA re-lends these books to other physical libraries.
3. IA developes a API in conjunction with these libraries so they can query the status of the physical books they re-lent.
4. If a physical library has not loaned a given physical copy of the book IA can know that via the API and is then free to lend out a digital copy of that book.
5. Publishers therefore sell a few extra copies of popular books which then are donated to IA in step 1.
6. Out of print books continue to be available with no restrictions. If publishers complain about this we demand laws that attack their profits and consider putting their executives in prison.
7. Seriously don’t even think of messing with #6 or you will regret it, plutocrats.
Araştırma-incelemenin arka planını bilmeyen kişilerin kitap işinde “telif hakkı” türünden bir basit nedene dayanarak araştırma-incelemeye engel olması, hele de 2023 yılında, şaşılacak birşey. Araştırma-incelemede bir kitabın bir baskısı da yetersizdir, birden fazla baskısı da… Araştırma-inceleme çalışması olan önemli eserlerden Foucault’un Les Mots et les Choses’un arka planında 5000 kitap var. Bir yazarın bir kitap çalışması için 5000 kitap alması demek 20X5000=100000 kitap demek. 100000 kitap satın alacak dünya üzerinde bir araştırmacı da yok. İşin ansiklopedi, sözlük, dergi, antoloji, gazete… türünden ikinci planı daha da feci. Buna bütçe yetmez. 900 dolar ile ben hangi kitabı alayım ya da hangi kütüphanelere gideyim? İstanbul’da yüksek lisans yaptığımda 20 kütüphaneden çalışma yaptım. Şimdi durumum değişti ve dünyaya açıldım. İlk sözlüklerden günümüze kadar yayınlanan sözlükler üzerine bir çalışma yapıyorum. John G. Koeltl ya da Penguin, Hachette, HarperCollins… gibi ne dediğini dahi bilmeyen, yaşamlarında kesinlikle bu kadar detaya dikkat etmeyen kişiler veya kurumlar nedense bu gibi durumlarda dikkat kesiliyorlar. Bir tarihçi nasıl anne-baba-dede türünden kendisi için öncelikli kişileri bir yana bırakıp bir kral için yaşamını heder ediyorsa, bunlar da ne dediklerini, ne yaptıklarını dahi anlamadan sözde karar veriyorlar.
Yargıç, kütüphanelerle uğraşacağına gitsin çetelerle, kara para aklayanlarla, tecavüzcülerle… uğraşsın. İki kitap yayınlamış, nasıl yazmış bilmiyorum. Bir araştırmacı olmadığı kesin. Kant, Hegel, Hume, Locke, Freud, Heidegger… okumadığı belli. Platon’un etkisinde M.Ö. 5000’de yaşayan biri. Platon okumuş mu? Sanmıyorum. Subjektif olan hukuku objektif yapmak için uğraştığının bilincinde bile değil. Meclis yasayı yapıyor, onu uyguluyor. Otursun objektif hukuk üzerine bir çalışma yapsın. Bir sonuca varamayacağını kendisine belirteyim.
“derivative works” kavramını kullanmış (https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/24/23655804/internet-archive-hatchette-publisher-ebook-library-lawsuit). “derivative” değil “photo book” bu. Tanım yapmayı bilmeyen ya da vereceği karara göre “derivative works” diyen bir kişi. “derivative works” dediğinde zaten kararı vermiş oluyor.
Yayınevleri de kütüphanelerle uğraşacaklarına daha kaliteli eserler için uğraşsınlar.
Does to lower court decision say clearly what is going to happen to archive / what specific actions need to be taken by IA? And what could be the timeline of appeal and other legal steps before the court’s final and binding decision?
As far as I know this archive site is providing many digital services worldwide, people are learning many things by reading books. I wish that you will win the CASE.
This is not a fight this is a battle gone wrong
I mean did you seriously expect the judge not to be another servants to corps like all judges? Montesquieu was an idiot, an “independent” judiciary is a corrupt one, and the only way to obtain justice is through terrorism, which after all is how this country was born. The sooner you all will accept this simple fact, the better.
I’m with you.
I hope Internet Archive wins the appeal.
We are all looking forward to that appeal wins the lawsuit.
All the memories of my internet life are preserved here on Wayback Machine and I use the archive on daily basis to access the past, it’s become like an extension of my life. This selfish attack to part of Internet Archive platform doesn’t involve just digital books but the life of thousands of people who rely on Wayback Machine to preserve their own precious content.
Please, get a subscription instead. Get along with these scoundrels, but the Internet Archive has to live. No one can afford to erase years and years of work, history, culture and art. Nobody. Really, if all goes bad, rather let us pay for a subscription, but never let the INTERNET ARCHIVE die
Logic dictates that digital copyright laws are inherently null/void. Digital data is essentially comprised of zeros and ones. The zero can not be copywritten, nor can the one. Therefore, any combination of zeros and ones together also can not be copywritten. Attempts to do so are illogical.
The Internet Archive clearly believed that what they were doing was legal so I hope that the fines which could destroy IA will be waived.
I wonder if publishers will one day rue having “won” this fight with the Internet Archive. They may think it is protecting their profits, but is it? IA at least tried to do the right thing. The books which the publishers consider valuable are already easily available through piracy and this does nothing to stop it. The sad thing is, the books the publishers don’t care about and don’t even bother to make available will simply disappear.
It’s necessary, even vital that Internet Archive continue to live. English wasn’t my first language, but Archive has straighten my translating/interpreting skill to the point where this language almost become my first! My health become heavily compromised during the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic (got the virus 3 times in 1,5 year!) and now only this project alone gives me strength to live further! In my country , original english books worth a lot of money and libraries in my hometown does not have modern classics and fiction in English (not to mention other foreign languages) at all!
So shame on this publishing moguls, that expropriate a right to self-educate from people of the world!!!
I have no money, jobless… neither i get cash benefits from my greedy corrupt government. But if I could, I would give a part of my remaining heath you, IA guys, to won the hearings, and to be with us till the end of times!
Yours, faithfully.
Honestly these people don’t care about anyone but themselves (the publishers or whoever is trying to delete internet archive) because obviously they don’t care about the onions of the people who use Internet Archive.
~A very upset user
Honestly these people don’t care about anyone but themselves (the publishers or whoever is trying to delete internet archive) because obviously they don’t care about the opinions of the people who use Internet Archive.
~A very upset user
Yeah, so horribly selfish. Let alone the really modern books, which are 2010’s editions and may still be printing. Ok, some of them make take license as newly written and published. But the books of XIX-XX centuries and younger – they are logically must going out of licensing to take their ultimate place in public domain. It’s virtually unfair to demand paying for simple borrowing & reading long time out-of-print copies and editions.
I just don’t/can’t understand this these people trying to do this are so selfish and self-centered they don’t even care about anything but the money going into their pockets and I am so disgusted by it and I pray that the don’t win!
Yeah, so horribly selfish. Let alone the really modern books, which are 2010’s editions and may still be printing. Ok, some of them make take license as newly written and published. But the books of XIX-XX centuries and younger – they are logically must going out of licensing to take their ultimate place in public domain. It’s virtually unfair to demand paying for simple borrowing & reading long time out-of-print copies and editions.
I know right! This is just crazy!
I know right!
WHY IS INTERNET ARCHIVE BLOCKING PDF DOWNLOAD OF PUBLIC DOMAIN CONTENT ?
Internet Archive (IA) is one the largest repositories of digital content in existence. I have been using it for well over a decade to access materials that have passed out of copyright. Such content is passed by law into the “public domain” and is, therefore, freely accessible to the public and is allowed to be shared just as freely. According to current U.S. copyright laws all published materials with a copyright date prior to 1924 are in the public domain.
This is an article by Duke University School of Law explaining copyright laws and public domain content:
https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2023/#:~:text=Unpublished%20works%20that%20were%20not,go%20into%20the%20public%20domain.
Let me reiterate: Anyone has the right to digitally share and access materials that are in the public domain.
IA claims to support the free exchange of information within the confines of the law and, according to the notification on their website, is “still fighting for all libraries”. So why has IA blocked their PDF-download option for public domain content? PDF is the freest and most versatile format available for uploading, downloading, and viewing documents and there is no law restricting its use. It was released as an open standard by Adobe in 2008. This means that it is freely open to the public and that no corporate entity can control it. Epub, however, which IA has left enabled, is directly associated with Amazon Kindle, now notorious for deleting user content without the consent of the user, even when the content had been purchased or was legally considered public domain. Epub is also associated with Apple, an obsessively proprietary corporation known for charging fees for all of its content, including apps, open source programs, and public domain content that is available for free everywhere else. These are the corporations teaming up with Epub and Epub is the open source format IA decided to stay with instead of the free and independent PDF format.
So, to the creators and editors of Internet Archive, the self-proclaimed “purveyors of free speech and free access to information”: I will believe your claims when 1. you reenable the PDF option for downloading Internet Archive content and 2. you cease any future tampering with the lawful means of sharing and accessing said content.
Meanwhile, IA fairly “bends over backward” to avoid violating copyright laws. All books on IA’s website that are still in copyright are lend-only. IA does not allow downloading of currently-copyrighted materials unless it is expressly stipulated by the author that the content of their book may be freely disseminated.
i hope internet archive wins library is a good place to cheek books out and even dvds well sometimes i have so manny memories going to the library
i hope internet archive wins library is a good place to cheek books out and even dvds well sometimes i have so manny memories going to the library
Let’s all hope and pray the Internet Archive wins that case tonight!!
Cheers!!
You shouldn’t be based in the US.
How will authors survive if your able to provide their works for free?
Just say you hate libraries Joe like these lame publishers do. If libraries had come about today there would be a concerted effort to destroy them instead of a public service that helps millions in this country alone much less the library systems available worldwide. But hey if it can’t make a capitalist a profit it must be worthless right?
Most of the written content on Internet Archive is out of copyright and has passed into the public domain (according to copyright laws, before public domain status can be granted, the original copyright date must be a minimum of 95 years old). Public domain content is freely accessible, may be freely downloaded and freely shared. All materials with active copyright dates are borrow-only and cannot be permanently downloaded. Borrowed books have a 7-day limitation. After the 7 days expire, (even if you haven’t finished reading your selections), any of your borrowed downloads are automatically disabled and you must repeat the process to borrow them again. This is the same service that brick and mortar libraries offer. The only difference is that brick and mortar libraries don’t give you access to their archive rooms where their out-of-print materials are stored. Instead, they make digital copies of these materials available on websites like Internet Archive where we can enjoy books and other types of public domain materials that we would normally never be able to have access to.
I havn’t opportunity to donate from my country but I am completely with you.
While I am not financially able to donate right now, I do question how this is even eligible for trial. I am a disabled veteran, retired teacher, and not able to drive. But I can go online and check out books from my city and county library for my reader, every day if I have a return.
So I don’t understand why they feel that attacking an online lending service is a legal action. Surely they have better things to do than this. As I, once again, have friends coming to take me to a memorial for the children and adults killed in Nashville. But I guess there is no money or interest in protecting our children. Better to attack an educational facility that is safe from gunfire.
I am tired of the so called internet library. The question need to be asked, where they get all the information from?
First point:
My materials that feeds my business, was hacked and suddenly end up on the in internet in the library. How do one explain that? I received notification where it was and even the two software programs that was use to break my passwords.
Second point:
On a constant basis security software programs are being proven to be not suitable for the safe keeping of even personal information on Microsoft as you are waiting for a laptop, then someone has already registered it on your name. How can any information be safe.
I am of the believe that personal data and information without the owners consent are being removed and used to benefit the internet.
The same happened when community members are being trained to develop software in groups, no problem. My question, who is claimed the Grant, the revenue incentives and benefits. Afterall the owner of the software at the end receive the contract and benefit financially.
I have proof that will really shock you. I have been a victim. I had to close my business.
Anytime a corporation doesn’t have the kind of control they wish, they go to court. But, the bottom line resides with the people. We like libraries. And the Internet Archive is here to stay as far as I am concerned. The loaning of books has been helpful and fun. The publishers should leave it alone. There’s nothing they can do to stop the people from getting what they want. If people want piracy, they’re going to get it one way or another. Even if it destroys corporations. But i do not believe people want to steal. Publishers charge too much for books.
this organization is innocent and educational.
Раньше сжигали книги на площади. Теперь “убивают” интернет библиотеки с оцифрованными книгами. Держитесь!!! Вы нужны нам!!!
Will the Internet Archive be transparent to its donors about censorship on the Internet Archive library and Wayback Machine? Will there ever be a list of items restricted with “You must log in to view this content”? You claim to be worried about “[holding] back access to information” but yet you are putting up barriers like these? Are you a library or just an extension of big tech operating under false premise of fighting such?
As a former president of a writers’ organization, I was familiar with copyright law. At that time, controlled digital lending would have been legal…. but it hadn’t been implemented because the world wide web had not been invented. Digital lending rights for books often do not result in remuneration for authors… but publishers and distributors do benefit.
So, the real issue is whether there is a difference between the library circulation of paper books and digitally scanned (direct copy of) books. In the world of controlled digital lending (as implemented by Internet Archive, IA), the practice is identical and would be considered a property right of the paper book owner. [This is not the same as the relaxed lending practiced by IA in response to the mandated closing of physical libraries. It was an understandable and noble response to the equally illegal mandates executed by various governments within the USA.]
Does the lending of a digital scanned copy compete with the publisher’s created digital version — naturally. One is the property right of a physical book (paper or pdf) owner to make a backup copy for personal use and/or lending. The paper book can be sold as a used book. The scan you made as a backup can not be sold. Digitally published versions (not a copy) available from publishers for various electronic platforms can not be re-sold.(even though you purchase it, you don’t own it, you only have a temporary license to read it) and are often preferred by those who wish to have all the bells and whistles afforded a digital copy for e=readers (note taking, family sharing, searching, imperceptible weight/size,….etc.), i.e. a version which provides at least equal and often extra value — far greater than a pdf… something worthy of a purchase.
However, the digital version offered for controlled digital lending of an electronic copy does not have the same capabilities as those of a purchased digital version. In addition, the controlled lending of library books is not the same for paper as it is for digital copies provided by publishers. Publishers have created their own set of unique rules for electronic lending — which they are free to do. They are not, however, free to eliminate a direct copy made by the paper owner.
Publisher successes in exercising greater control over ownership, availability, access and obsolescence of digital book and digital book lending versions has led to greater publishing profits. If the same control can be gained over paper books, electronic versions will reign and libraries will close.
If one observes the digital lending industry history, one is able to see the many changes constantly narrowing the access to and increasing the cost of publisher provided digital lending. As these controls grow, pressure to purchase either digital or paper (not both) and pressure to change the copyright laws will reflect both those pressures — whether by legislation or judicial ruling and precedent. .
The goals of a society which seeks to limit availability and access to information is the increase of licensing and the decrease of ownership and/or the rights of ownership. Whether this is stranger than 1980’s fiction or simply copies it, there is little doubt that this trend deepens the sinkhole at the foot of democracy.
Liabraries are source of knowledge to the mass. Authors and Publishers are the generator, compiler, enricher and distributor of the Knowledge. But how dangerous the knowledge becomes when this group becomes of selfish interest. They may twist the Knowledge in any way, not enriching the mass rather misleading.
He is not an author who fights against Library.
He is not a publiser who fights against Library.
Liabraries are source of knowledge to the mass. Authors and Publishers are the generator, compiler, enricher and distributor of the Knowledge. But how dangerous the knowledge becomes when this group becomes of selfish interest. They may twist the Knowledge in any way, not enriching the mass rather misleading.
He is not an author who fights against Library.
He is not a publiser who fights against Library.
I’m also autistic christian who have disabilities who researchs every title of every film and television programme and always standing up for the digital rights of all libraries. I always declare that the Internet Archive is here to stay. The loaning of books has been helpful and fun. The publishers need to leave it alone. There’s nothing they can do to stop the people from getting what they want anymore. Publishers has charge too much for books and magazine. We’re always hoping and praying that the Internet Archive wins that case this friday.
not Hachette. Only this time is Internet Archive v. Hachette.
The Internet Archive isn’t a library and any fool could have seen this court loss coming.
Reminds me of when Princess Diana’s Trust decided to take on the Franklin Mint due to use of the dead Di’s image – which was perfectly legal and totally not actionable because she is dead. The parallel here is the apparent lack of self-awareness and understanding of copyright law – and commom sense. The Trust’s legal battle cost them the whole charity and the Internet Archive seems to be heading in the same direction with this baseless defence. It’s just stupid.
You should drop the appeal and stop stamping your feet because this obviously isn’t going to succeed, as much as you’d like it to.
I like and use the internet Archive, sometimes for downloading copyrighted material for resale on eCommerce websites. That might sound worse than just hosting such content for free, but I’m not going to be going to court to challenge any alleged infringement – I would just stop the infringing, because that’s what you are supposed to do. And I’m certainly not going to be asking the general public for donations to fund a defence. Money down the drain, if you ask me.
Genuine question: have I missed something? Libraries pay Public Lending Rights for books/ebooks that are in copyright. This is compensation to the author & publisher for potential loss of sales. If IA isn’t paying public lending rights for content that is in copyright, then IA is in the wrong. If it IS paying Public Lending Rights, then the publishers are in the wrong.
Fair use/freedom of information is neither here nor there in this instance.
As far as I can see, IA isn’t paying PLR.
Out of copyright publications shouldn’t be affected.
Is there more to the action than I’ve gleaned?
I support Internet Archive. All these attempts to limit access to knowledge are ridiculous and absurd. At times when it is difficult to locate materials that I absolutely need, Internet Archive has been a go-to destination for it. It is challenging being a researcher in India, with limited access to materials on international authors and books that are priced beyond a researcher’s capacity, the only place to look is IA.
I really hope that the services continue as it will be a huge loss, a loss beyond words if IA shuts down.
Impact on Libraries and Controlled Digital Lending
A federal court in New York ruled against the Internet Archive in a copyright infringement case brought by Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, Penguin Random House, and Wiley. The case was centered on the Internet Archive’s practice of creating and lending digital copies of books without permission from copyright holders.
Controlled digital lending is a practice that allows libraries to digitize books they own and lend them to patrons in a way that mimics the physical lending of books. Under controlled digital lending, a library can lend a digital copy of a book to one patron at a time, just like it would lend a physical copy of a book. This practice enables libraries to expand access to books to patrons who may not be able to visit the library in person, such as those with disabilities, or those who live in remote areas.
The Internet Archive, a non-profit organization that operates a digital library, has been a prominent advocate for controlled digital lending. The organization has digitized millions of books and made them available to the public through its lending program. The lending program operates on the principle of “one copy, one user,” meaning that only one person can borrow a digital copy of a book at a time. When a user borrows a book, the digital copy becomes unavailable to other users until the loan period expires.
However, publishers such as Hachette, HarperCollins, Penguin Random House, and Wiley argue that controlled digital lending is a violation of copyright law. They claim that the practice allows libraries to create and distribute unauthorized copies of their books, and that libraries should be required to obtain a license for each digital copy they lend. The publishers filed a lawsuit against the Internet Archive, alleging that the organization’s lending program was an “unauthorized and brazen infringement” of their copyrights.
In the court’s ruling, Judge John G. Koeltl agreed with the publishers, stating that the Internet Archive’s practice of creating and lending digital copies of books without permission from copyright holders was not protected by fair use. The judge wrote that the lending program “is akin to a pirate site, offering thousands of books to users without any authorization from copyright owners.” He also rejected the Internet Archive’s argument that its lending program was a fair use because it served the public interest by increasing access to books.
The court’s decision is a blow to libraries that rely on controlled digital lending to provide access to books. Many libraries have embraced the practice as a way to connect patrons with books that may be difficult or expensive to obtain through other means. The decision could make it more difficult for libraries to lend digital copies of books, as they may now be required to obtain licenses for each book they lend.
In response to the court’s decision, the Internet Archive has announced that it will stop lending digital copies of books that were published after 2019. The organization will continue to lend digital copies of books that were published before that year, as it believes that those books are still protected by fair use. However, the decision is likely to have a chilling effect on the controlled digital lending practices of other libraries, as they may now fear legal action from publishers.
Some advocates for libraries and fair use have criticized the court’s decision, arguing that it places an undue burden on libraries and restricts access to information. They claim that the decision undermines the purpose of fair use, which is to balance the interests of copyright holders with the public’s right to access information. They argue that libraries should be allowed to lend digital copies of books without obtaining licenses, as long as they follow the principles of controlled digital lending and limit the number of simultaneous users to match the number of physical copies they own.
In conclusion, the court decision in Hachette v. Internet Archive has significant implications for libraries across the US that rely on controlled digital lending to connect their patrons with books online. The decision could make it more difficult for libraries to lend digital copies of books, as they may now be required to obtain licenses for each book they lend. This may limit access to information, particularly for those who are unable to visit physical libraries. While some advocates for libraries and fair use have criticized the decision, others argue that copyright holders have a right to control the distribution of their works.
https://archive.org/donate
Court Decision, Hachette v. Internet Archive, Controlled Digital Lending, Libraries, Copyright Infringement, Fair Use, Publishers, Digital Copies, License, Access to Information
TELL THEM NO INFINGEMENT OF ANY KIND INCLUDING COPYRIGHT IS INTENDED!
THAT’S A WARNING FROM ME, SERIOUS DANIEL SAUER
I suggest that A federal court in New York better stop ruling against the Internet Archive in something that does not intended and Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, Penguin Random House, and Wiley stop bringing that stupid case. It was centered on the Internet Archive’s practice of creating and lending digital copies of books with no infingmrnt intended to all the copyright holders, terms of use, trademark or three or more.
They’re always argue that controlled digital lending is a violation of over nothing. claiming that the practice allows libraries to create and distribute unauthorized copies of over nothing, and I know that libraries will be required to obtain a license for each digital copy they lend. If I was in New York I the one who will file a lawsuit against the Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, Penguin Random House, and Wiley, alleging that the organization’s lending program was an “unauthorized and brazen infringement” of their copyrights. Because I will never stop telling the world that no unauthorized and brazen infringement of their copyrights is intended. Tell Judge John G. Koeltl and the publishers, stating that the Internet Archive’s practice of creating and lending digital copies of books without infingement intended from copyright holders was always protected by fair use. Used by permission in order. I always Order them to give the Internet Archive a permission. Its not is akin to a pirate site. Its just a non-profit organization just like PBS. They’re must be talking about something I truly hate the most. IT’S PORNOGRAPHY! I glad that Judge John G. Koeltl rejected the Internet Archive’s argument that its lending program was a fair use because it served the public interest by increasing access to books. But I’m afraid that the decision is likely to have a chilling effect on the controlled digital lending practices of the Internet Archive, as the organization may now fear legal action from violations and infringements of over nothing. archive.org does have to spend part of everybody’s donation lobbying congress to revise the law (or publicity for citizens to pressure their congress[men]) and The New York Courts. Sometimes the bounds of the existing law are unjust. Just like Taxiation without representation. I believe that It’s the third decade of the 21st century now, and virtually all the books nowadays are digital, which means copyable. those who copy and redistribute copyrighted material result in a waste of energy for the publishing companies does not infringe or violate anything, because is not intended, good intentioned efforts like the Internet Archive will be obstructed to perform their duty for humanity. those books only could be read by the few that can can afford it is fact they’re failed products. The Internet Archive always honor their responsibility towards humankind by allowing the diffusion of knowledge by not intending violations of terms of use in the name of progress.
I am a long-time user and financial supporter of the internet Archive. According to my understanding of the origin of this lawsuit, the publishers brought suit because during the pandemic the Archive was allowing multiple loans of the same copyrighted book to multiple users at the same time. However well-intentioned, that practice of the Archive’s was sure to foment a lawsuit. The judge then went a giant step further, and in a shock addition he ruled that any single loan of a single copy to a single user at a time is a copyright infringement. I think he is wrong there and he is wrong in saying the Archive’s lending practice is “akin to a pirate site”,
My support for Internet Archive is modest, but I do make an annual donation. The existing library implementation is clearly in violation of existing U.S. copyright law. I’m very unhappy that any of my donation might be used for the library, much less thrown away on legal fees.
I’m not crazy about every aspect of copyright law. If archive.org wanted to spend part of my donation lobbying congress to revise the law (or publicity for citizens to pressure their congress[men]), I wouldn’t object. But you MUST operate within the bounds of the existing law.
I think major publishing companies have a narrow business vision. It’s the second decade of the 21st century, and virtually all the books nowadays are digital, which means copyable. Fighting against those who copy and redistribute copyrighted material result in a waste of energy for the publishing companies, because in the end, good intentioned efforts like the Internet Archive will be obstructed to perform their duty for humanity, while illegal copies will be continue circulating on the Internet. I think that a book that only could be read by the few that can can afford it is fact a failed product, in fact publishers should look for reach big audiences. A book that is openly accessible for everyone is more prone to make profit that one that does not. The business is not in selling books, but in accumulating a big audience. Publishing companies should learn lessons from the music industry in the past, today it is easier to (legally) hear a song in Spottify or Youtube than (illegally) downloading it from the deep web. Fighting piracy in the courts if futile, fighting it by adapting the business model is more effective. Do publishing companies understand this, instead of sueing, they should ally with Internet Archive to put there all their contents in build a wider audience. Doing this two achievements would be made: 1) They could make more money (as it is the raison d’etre for every company) 2) They could honor their responsibility towards humankind by allowing the diffusion of knowledge.
thank you for the great work! God bless Internet Archive.
When is the deadline for the appeal?
Hmm…
I cannot understand why this lawsuit happens, and I don’t even know who’s Hachette was…
So, if that decision only affected just for USA… How about the rest of the world then? Including Wayback Machine too. (But I’m sure that some comment said that Software, Videos, Magazines and stuffs that is not textbooks won’t be affected unless they got a copyright claims)
But anyways, I hope that this lawsuit should be ending soon.
You are the only website that I contribute regularly to. And this is why.
Good luck!
…you could at least keep the books without copyright… >( ? !!
I hope IA will not be closed … it will be a cultural crime
why a physical library has the right to exist and a digital one does not?
ESPAÑOL:
Por favor, por favor, por favor, dona todo tu dinero al Archivo de Internet que tienes para que puedan ganar esta apelación porque esta puede ser mi última oportunidad de descargar todo en este sitio!! Espero que Internet Archive gane este llamamiento, ¡así que recen a Dios para que ganen!!
ENGLISH:
Please please please, donate all your money to the Internet Archive you have so they can win this appeal because this may be my last chance to download everything on this site!! I hope Internet Archive wins this appeal, so pray to god they win!!
Does anybody know what the deadline is for the appeal?
Today I guess? Let’s hope to god IA wins.
Internet history is important. Should never be stopped, only enhanced.
I agree.
I was out of the orbit for a bit and surprised when I can’t access any books in archive.org, it is indeed a sad day for everyone who cherish free access to educational materials. I’m not familiar with U.S. copyright law or any of U.S. law as I am not an American, but I enjoy my time with archive.org as it is not only served recent books but also a lot of ancient books that had not published for decade. It is deeply regretted if someday this site gets taken down due to the current case. I wish that both publishers and this site, as well as the authority can reach an agreement and keep this site running, maybe with one or more agreements between them.
Well, I hope the best outcome will be yours, archive.org!
Not to worry, The Internet Archive will never be closed and never be a cultural crime or something.
It will always remain the non-profit organization my home.
this site will never be taken down due to the current case of over nothing.
The Archive has arguably been the most helpful website in existence.
Thank you for everything.
I agree.
We need to preserve this unique resource on the internet! All of us should be aware that in this digital age this archive is providing yeoman’s service to researchers who cannot afford or have access to visit these global physical libraries. It is like an ocean where anyone can dip and discover the things one likes and enrich oneself with knowledge and for benefitting others as well with the research work.
I agree.
The Archive is, without a doubt, the Internet’s Great Library of Alexandria and lost+found office.
The libary must live!