Publishers, Internet Archive agree to streamline digital book-lending case
www.reuters.com
The Internet Archive and a group of leading book publishers told a Manhattan federal court on Friday that they have resolved aspects of their legal battle over the Archive's digital lending of their scanned books.

From: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.537900/gov.uscourts.nysd.537900.214.1.pdf

‘“Covered Book” shall mean any in-copyright book or portion thereof, whether in existence as of the date hereof or later created, in which any Plaintiff (or any subsidiary or corporate affiliate of a Plaintiff) (a) owns or controls an exclusive right under the Copyright Act …’

‘the “Internet Archive Parties” … are permanently enjoined and restrained from engaging in any of the following acts in, from or to the United States … the distribution to the public, public display, and/or public performance, of Covered Books in, from or to the United States in Case 1:20-cv-04160-JGK-OTW Document 214-1 Filed 08/11/23 Page 3 of 6 any digital or electronic form, including without limitation on the Internet Archive website (collectively “Unauthorized Distribution”)’

So while backing up the entire lending library might have been a challenge, perhaps the books of just the plaintiff publishers can be backed up?

Some tools:

https://gitea.com/bipinkrish/DeGourou

https://github.com/MiniGlome/Archive.org-Downloader

Might also be an opportunity to punish the publishers by distributing their copyrighted works and hurting their pocket (though it seems they’re still yet to prove that piracy actually hurts profits!)

  • @conditional_soup@lemm.eeEnglish
    57•1 year ago

    Yeah, you know, that [checks notes] one copy of a book that the lending library was able to lend* was really eating into their profit margin. Honest to God, they probably spent more money on lawyers over this shit than they’ll ever recoup, and it just makes them look stupid, greedy, and stupidly greedy.

    *I think it’s one copy per actually book that’s owned. Just like you can’t lend you friends more copies of a given book than you own.

  • FaceDeer
    26•1 year ago

    Frankly, good. As it always should have been.

    Internet Archive is not Library Genesis, the two organizations have very different functions and should be structured very differently.

    Internet Archive is for preserving data, not necessarily distributing it as widely as possible. If distributing the data puts the preservation of that data at risk then don’t distribute it, keep it stashed safely away. Maybe a decade or two from now things will change and they’ll have the only copies, and keeping them snugly away out of sight will have been vital to preserving them after that point. Internet Archive has a public corporate presence that makes it easy to donate to and easy to run their servers, but also makes them easy to sue. So avoid doing anything that gets you sued.

    Library Genesis, on the other hand, is piracy central. Their mandate is distributing this stuff and sticking their thumbs in the eyes of the publishers. So they’re structured entirely differently. They run on the shady side of the internet, making them hard to donate to but also hard to sue. They should be the ones “fighting the fight” right now. It would be sad if they got taken down but not an irrecoverable tragedy, a new Library Genesis can rise again.

    Internet Archive are being idiots by poking the bear like they have been lately, it’s like they’re carrying a precious irreplaceable baby and they’ve decided to take a run through a minefield. I hope they learn from this debacle.

    • @notfromhere@lemmy.oneEnglish
      2•1 year ago

      If they have the only copy and their datacenter goes belly up, lot of good it did to have the only remaining copy because now it’s lost to existence. Offsite backups and ideally by many different organizations is the only sure-fire way to preserve this stuff. I donate to archive.org because I believe on what they’re trying to do and I hope they can continue on as long as needed.

      • FaceDeer
        1•1 year ago

        Yes, that would be preservation. I don’t think they’d have ever got in trouble for doing that, even if it was technically a copyright violation. Probably not even if they had some sort of limited “lending” system so that rare texts could be read by the few who were interested in them. The problem came when Internet Archive flung their gates wide and let everyone download freely, at that point they became a piracy site and got hammered like a piracy site. That’s counter to their goal of simple preservation.