448
submitted 1 week ago by gedaliyah@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

In an open letter to publishers, more than 30,000 readers, researchers, and authors begged for access to the books to be restored in the open library, claiming the takedowns dealt "a serious blow to lower-income families, people with disabilities, rural communities, and LGBTQ+ people, among many others," who may not have access to a local library or feel "safe accessing the information they need in public."

During a press briefing following arguments in court Friday, IA founder Brewster Kahle said that "those voices weren't being heard." Judges appeared primarily focused on understanding how IA's digital lending potentially hurts publishers' profits in the ebook licensing market, rather than on how publishers' costly ebook licensing potentially harms readers.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 week ago

Yep. Libraries can't just buy an ebook like they can buy a book. They have to negotiate a contract with the copyright holder to be able to lend them out.

[-] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The IAs point is that they should not have to do that, partly because of first sale doctrine. They bought each ebook, and only lend out that copy, the exact same as libraries do now.

1 bought copy, 1 lend. That's a fair and simple system that mimics hundreds of years of physical book lending.

Their other point is that the societal good of allowing anyone in the world to educate themselves for free far, far outweigh the value of monetary gain for publishers. Since copyright is intended to help society, their interpretation is the better application of it.

Then write new laws. Digitizing the book is already relying on fair use. Judges aren't lawmakers, and this case doesn't have the tiniest hint of the tiniest shred of a leg to stand on.

There is no first sale doctrine for digital. There is no such thing as ownership of a "digital copy" to begin with. The framework doesn't exist. You have a license.

[-] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Again, it's their point that they dont need to change the law, just that the law should just be applied better.

Thats what the court will decide.

[-] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

There's no possible way to apply the law where the Internet Archive is permitted to do their lending program. It very clearly is illegal copyright infringement that does not come anywhere close to fair use.

The judges do not have the authority to completely overrule both the text of the law and the massive body of precedent. The Supreme Court could, except the Constitution explicitly grants Congress the right to regulate IP how they see fit, and the law is super clear that you can't do anything that resembles what IA is doing in any way.

[-] Pixlbabble@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

You can use your library card to login to Libby and check out ebooks.

You can check an eBook out, but there are examples of issues, something like the library can only do it five times or whatever. It isn't treated like an actual book. I don't know the details but there are problems with eBook rentals.

[-] Pixlbabble@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

There's always piratebay.

Because the libraries have explicit licenses from the IP holders.

this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2024
448 points (99.1% liked)

News

21742 readers
3362 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS