In the Internet Archive Lawsuit, a Win for Publishers May Come at a Cost for Readers Everywhere
The US court’s decision means that digital lending has become a pressing question for libraries and readers

ON MARCH 24, the Internet Archive lost the copyright lawsuit that had been brought against it by four major publishers. The group—which comprised Hachette, HarperCollins, John Wiley & Sons, and Penguin Random House—had sued early in the pandemic, shortly after the Internet Archive opened the National Emergency Library. The NEL was described as a crisis response to a world in which teachers and students were suddenly shut out of classrooms, librarians and researchers barred from the stacks, and the public unable to access large amounts of information. Containing more than 1.4 million books, the Internet Archive’s catalogue involved taking a single physical copy of a title, digitizing it, and making it available for mass download—without authorization by the publisher and author. Prior to the pandemic, many of these books had wait lists and download limits; the NEL was a temporary suspension of those limits. The Internet Archive claimed its move was protected under the doctrine of fair use, but the court didn’t buy it.

——

https://thewalrus.ca/internet-archive-books/

Not sure why they thought they’d get away with it under fair use, they clearly don’t meet the requirements:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Non-profit educational is a grey area. While one could argue every book teaches something, it’s probably not what the requirement measures and only applies to textbooks or something.

Uploading the entire work is obviously a no-no. The effect being that neither the publisher nor author is paid for the works.

During the pandemic, many publishers, authors, and other copyright holders did allow their works to be broadcast via YouTube. An example was Andrew Lloyd Webber, who allowed various musicals to be published on YouTube for a limited time (usually 48-72 hours). After the lockdown periods, some allowed the works to remain on YouTube, others did not.

Forgot the link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

Divine Angel said:

Not sure why they thought they’d get away with it under fair use, they clearly don’t meet the requirements:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Non-profit educational is a grey area. While one could argue every book teaches something, it’s probably not what the requirement measures and only applies to textbooks or something.

Uploading the entire work is obviously a no-no. The effect being that neither the publisher nor author is paid for the works.

During the pandemic, many publishers, authors, and other copyright holders did allow their works to be broadcast via YouTube. An example was Andrew Lloyd Webber, who allowed various musicals to be published on YouTube for a limited time (usually 48-72 hours). After the lockdown periods, some allowed the works to remain on YouTube, others did not.

Yeah, much as I like the idea of being able to download all of absolutely anything for nothing, I have to confess to having some sympathy with Big Book here.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Divine Angel said:

Not sure why they thought they’d get away with it under fair use, they clearly don’t meet the requirements:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Non-profit educational is a grey area. While one could argue every book teaches something, it’s probably not what the requirement measures and only applies to textbooks or something.

Uploading the entire work is obviously a no-no. The effect being that neither the publisher nor author is paid for the works.

During the pandemic, many publishers, authors, and other copyright holders did allow their works to be broadcast via YouTube. An example was Andrew Lloyd Webber, who allowed various musicals to be published on YouTube for a limited time (usually 48-72 hours). After the lockdown periods, some allowed the works to remain on YouTube, others did not.

Yeah, much as I like the idea of being able to download all of absolutely anything for nothing, I have to confess to having some sympathy with Big Book here.

With an emphasis on the big. There are many people around the world who easily could spare the money to give everyone a free education.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Divine Angel said:

Not sure why they thought they’d get away with it under fair use, they clearly don’t meet the requirements:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Non-profit educational is a grey area. While one could argue every book teaches something, it’s probably not what the requirement measures and only applies to textbooks or something.

Uploading the entire work is obviously a no-no. The effect being that neither the publisher nor author is paid for the works.

During the pandemic, many publishers, authors, and other copyright holders did allow their works to be broadcast via YouTube. An example was Andrew Lloyd Webber, who allowed various musicals to be published on YouTube for a limited time (usually 48-72 hours). After the lockdown periods, some allowed the works to remain on YouTube, others did not.

Yeah, much as I like the idea of being able to download all of absolutely anything for nothing, I have to confess to having some sympathy with Big Book here.

With an emphasis on the big. There are many people around the world who easily could spare the money to give everyone a free education.

cough Amazon cough