Internet Library: The Fight Continues

[usonian]

Posted on March 25, 2023 by chrisfreeland
Chris Freeland is the Director of Open Libraries at Internet Archive.

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.”

What you can do.
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.



See also:
Stand with Internet Archive as we fight for the digital rights of all libraries

[AZSkiffyGeek]

1. Shorter version

"We don't believe authors should be paid for their work."

[hunter]

3. Publishing is like the sports industry.

Very few of those high school superstars ever make it to the big leagues, even fewer make lifetime careers of it.

It's the same with any art. For 99% of all artists, making a living of it is just plain old hard work, and the big money publishers are not your friends. They are fighting for their rights, not yours.

My wife and I live in a house stuffed to the rafters with art. Much of it we've bought directly from the artists who created it.

My parents are artists. Before they retired (my dad with a good union pension) they were artists with day jobs.

That's how art survives. Big money claims to curator of great art, but all they are protecting is their business model.

If artists really want to get ahead they need to unionize, big unions and small. It's folly to assume big corporations will defend their interests.

The Hachette Book Group can go to hell.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

4. You do understand that the authors don't get paid

When books are pirated. It’s stealing gussied up as “sharing”.
If the Internet Archive was a real library, they’d pay the proper fees so that the authors get paid.
But they aren’t. They are scanning single copies of copyrighted works and sharing them unlimited.
I have no problems with libraries. i don’t even have a problem with IA sharing creative commons or public domain works. I do have a problem with pirating copyrighted works.
Especially pirates that set their followers on authors who dare to say they should be paid for their work.
But apparently you think theft is okay if it’s against Hachette.

[hunter]

6. I understand it as the protection of obsolete business models.

This lawsuit is part of the process, of course.

Manufacturing superstar authors, musicians, actors, and athletes has always been a dirty business.

These large corporations profit most in the culling ( euphemistically the "curation" ) of art, not in the promotion of art, and it's all at the expense of smaller and vastly more important "niche" markets where the actual curation takes place.

So here's a question: How many high school students hoping to play in the NFL someday have permanently damaged their bodies and their minds seeking this illusion of glory? I'm not picking on the NFL in particular, I have a similarly low opinion of the Olympics, another fundamentally corrupt institution.

The other arts are little different. Big business corrupts everything it touches. When a small curator becomes a huge curator it implodes, becoming a machine that spews its crap everywhere.

There are musicians on YouTube who are better than the Beatles, who don't exude that toxic misogynistic 'sixties vibe. Many of them have Patreon accounts, and you can even watch them live in small venues.

There are many authors better than John Grisham, oh so many...

I'll leave you with another thought. How can authors writing in the Icelandic language possibly support themselves? Is it possible to be a "real" author if you only write in Icelandic?

Remarkably people in Iceland are among the most literate people on earth.

I respect copyrights. That doesn't mean I have to buy anyone's crap.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

7. Lotta words to say you are okay with stealing

And if you think copyright is “ an outdated business model” you don’t really respect it.
Not sure what the quality of John Grisham’s work, or the sexism of 60s music have to do with anything, other than it sounds like someone who is pissed off that others are more successful than they are.

[hunter]

9. I don't respect any artificial scarcity of art in general...

... I do respect the conditions imposed by any particular copyright holder. If somebody doesn't want me to look at their stuff, or makes it difficult for me to look at their stuff, I don't look at their stuff. Copyright itself isn't the part of the business model I find onerous and obsolete.

Why would I steal books I don't read, movies I'm never going to watch, or music I'm never going to listen too? Why would I steal anything I find annoying?



I might steal food from wealthier people if I was ever hungry enough but I've never been in that dire of a situation, and I've been in some fairly dire situations, with people either giving me food, or me finding food myself dumpster diving. (I had some pretty wild adventures as a young adult...)

Sometimes I shop at Target, but I rarely purchase books there. Most of the books I see there I wouldn't pick up if they were free. And I probably feel that way about 99.9% of the stuff in Target. I'll happily pay for the stuff I do want. Our Target has got the best price in town for soy milk. That's something I regularly buy there. Sometimes I'll buy DVDs there too. Maybe some of that DVD money makes its way to the actual artists, but it certainly satisfies the copyright owner. Target doesn't sell pirated DVDs.

My favorite form of literature is science fiction, especially short stories. I've got subscriptions to Analog, Asimov's, Fantasy & Science Fiction, etc., and that's not the only way I support this art.

I do my best to avoid supporting things I consider bullshit. I stream all my television without commercials. "Commercial Free" is something I pay extra for. Any tolerance I once had for television commercials evaporated a long time ago.

My wife and I don't have cable, satellite, or broadcast television. We actually spend more hours reading than we do watching television. In any case, if we stream a particular show on Netflix (for example), Netflix knows which shows we stream and presumably the artists are paid and the copyright holders satisfied, one way or another.

It's not like traditional television where part of my cable or satellite bill pays for content whether I watch it or not (for example, Fox News) and advertisers pay for the rest. I don't see television commercials at all in my ordinary daily life and haven't for more than a decade.

I choose not to support traditional television business models therefore I don't. For various reasons I don't want to support Apple or Microsoft either. I respect their copyrights by avoiding their software. My home computers run Linux and other free and open source software. The artists who create this software are much like my parents. Their paying jobs may be related to their art, in this case the art of writing software, but it's not the art itself paying the bills.

[303squadron]

2. Dear publishers, if you're no longer printing a book, stfu!

Just finished a piece of historical research for a fanzine. Without The Internet Archieve the research would have taken me many times longer having to hunt for books no longer in print.

The end game is censorship!

[AZSkiffyGeek]

5. This isn't about public domain works

It’s about copyrighted works that are in print and are being shared illegally.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

8. Yep. Distributing copyrighted material w/o permission and just compensation is theft.