Law Internet Archive (Archive.org) sued over the National Emergency Library by publishers - Publishers: "Pay up"

The Mass Shooter Ron Soye · Aug 14, 2023

Maybe the 4chan anon wasn't bullshitting, just wording it gay?

https://torrentfreak.com/internet-archives-copyright-battle-with-publishers-leads-to-lending-restrictions-230813/

Internet Archive’s Copyright Battle with Publishers Leads to Lending Restrictions

August 13, 2023 by Ernesto Van der Sar

The Internet Archive's online book lending library will be severely limited to avoid copyright liability. The library and book publishers have agreed the terms of a judgment that leaves one crucial question open for the court. While restrictions are unavoidable, for now, the Internet Archive is eager to reverse the court's liability ruling on appeal.

In 2020, publishers Hachette, HarperCollins, John Wiley and Penguin Random House sued the Internet Archive (IA) for copyright infringement, equating its ‘Open Library’ to a pirate site.

IA’s library is a non-profit organization that scans physical books, which can then be lent out to patrons in an ebook format. Patrons can also borrow books that are scanned and digitized in-house, with technical restrictions that prevent copying.

Staying true to the centuries-old library concept, only one patron at a time can rent a digital copy of a physical book. These restrictions were temporarily loosened at the height of the Covid epidemic when IA launched the National Emergency Library.

Mass Copyright Infringement or Fair Use?

Patrons happily use the library but not all rightsholders are happy with IA’s scanning and lending activities. The publishers are not against libraries per se, nor do they object to ebook lending, but ‘authorized’ libraries typically obtain an official license or negotiate specific terms. The Internet Archive has no such license.

As such, the publishers see IA’s library as a rogue operation that engages in willful mass copyright infringement, directly damaging their bottom line. As such, they want it permanently taken down.

“Without any license or any payment to authors or publishers, IA scans print books, uploads these illegally scanned books to its servers, and distributes verbatim digital copies of the books in whole via public-facing websites,” their complaint reads.

The Internet Archive wholeheartedly disagreed with the copyright infringement allegations. Stressing that the library offers a vital service, Internet Archive’s defense centered on the legal concept of transformative fair use.

Liability Ruling and Consent Judgment

After weighing the arguments from both sides, New York District Court Judge John Koeltl sided with the publishers. In March, the court granted their motion for summary judgment, which effectively means that the library is indeed liable for copyright infringement.

The court instructed both sides to come up with a consent judgment to determine how the ruling would be reflected in IA’s lending program. After several weeks of negotiations, a proposed agreement was submitted to the court last Friday.

The judgment comes with a permanent injunction that effectively bars the library from reproducing or distributing digital copies of the ‘covered books’ without permission from rightsholders.

These restrictions are subject to appeal, which means that the agreement could be rendered moot if IA wins its appeal, which is currently pending.

Covered Books?

The book publishers and IA agree on nearly all aspects of the proposed judgment except one. The parties still disagree on the term ‘covered books’ and leave this question open for the court.

The publishers would like all of their copyrighted works to be covered by the injunction, including those that are not available in ebook format. IA, on the other hand, believes that digitizing physical books is fair game if the publishers don’t offer a digital version.

“This case involved only works that the Publishers make available as ebooks and so the scope of any injunction should be limited accordingly,” IA explains.

The publishers disagree and stress that the court has already made it clear that IA is not allowed to digitize and distribute print books en masse without permission. Publishers should also have the right not to release ebooks, if they prefer.

“Of key significance, the law is clear that the right to decide whether or not to publish a book in electronic format belongs to its authors and publishers, not IA,” the publishers write.

Next Chapter

The court will now have to decide how broad the definition “covered books” should be. In their proposed judgment, the parties leave this question open, as shown below.

What’s clear, however, is that IA must make changes to its lending program. The organization says that it will communicate these to its patrons, once the judgment is approved.

At the same time, the library also made clear that it will fight the underlying order, as it believes that libraries should be able to digitize and lend books outside the strict licensing ecosystem.

“Libraries are under attack at unprecedented scale today, from book bans to defunding to overzealous lawsuits like the one brought against our library,” Internet Archive founder Brewster Kahle says.

“These efforts are cutting off the public’s access to truth at a key time in our democracy. We must have strong libraries, which is why we are appealing this decision,” Kahle concludes.

Meanwhile, IA has a new legal battle on its hands as the non-profit was sued by several prominent record labels on Friday. The companies accuse it of blatantly infringing copyrights in hundreds of thousands of sound recordings.

—

A copy of the proposed consent judgment submitted to the court on Friday is available here

Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL · Aug 14, 2023

The Mass Shooter Ron Soye said:
“When Defendants exploit Plaintiffs’ sound recordings without authorization, neither Plaintiffs nor their artists see a dime. Not only does this harm Plaintiffs and the artists or their heirs by depriving them of compensation, but it undermines the value of music,” the complaint adds.

Artists don't see a dime because they're fucking dead. Their heirs don't deserve compensation because their granddaddy made a catchy song 70 years ago. Plantiffs deserve compensation in the form of a noose around their neck.

Pokemon Conquistador · Aug 14, 2023

I can see allowing an IP to go to one's posterity for awhile to make them some money. What I can't see is allowing that posterity to sell the IP to a soulless corporation that milks it for 90 years. The best thing Christopher Tolkien could have done to protect his father's legacy was make The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings public domain. Yeah, that meant big corporations could have wiped their asses with it, but they were going to do that anyway at the first opportunity. Making the IP Public Domain means that there would at least be a chance that a company that cared about the property would make a decent adaptation that's true to the source. As opposed to what we have now: NOBODY being able to make a decent adaptation because big Corpos care more about being woke than about making quality products.

DamnWolves! · Aug 14, 2023

Save the Loli said:
Artists don't see a dime because they're fucking dead. Their heirs don't deserve compensation because their granddaddy made a catchy song 70 years ago.

Goofy argument. Many, many people work as hard as they do so they can give their kids a better life than the one they had. Filial Inheritance is a concept that dates back to Cain and Abel.

I'm not sure what sort of alternative you have in mind , but I'm sure it's some sort of Communist technonightmare, whether you intend for it to be or not.

I sail the high seas of the Internet as much as the next guy, but it seems to me that a lot of what's said in support of piracy is post-hoc justification. Before Internet piracy, no one was making the argument that "information should be free" or that "copying isn't the same as stealing because the original is still there". It's only with the widespread adoption and ease of use of these file sharing platforms that certain actors decided that the best defense of piracy was moral indignation at the very concept of copyright.

For me, it comes down to the idea of "why pay for something that's free?" and I can live with the moral implications of that, even if I couldn't necessarily justify it.

Does copyright doctrine have its problems? Absolutely. Is the concept of "you and your people should own the shit you make" one of them? Probably not.

Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL · Aug 14, 2023

DamnWolves! said:
Goofy argument. Many, many people work as hard as they do so they can give their kids a better life than the one they had. Filial Inheritance is a concept that dates back to Cain and Abel.

I'm not sure what sort of alternative you have in mind , but I'm sure it's some sort of Communist technonightmare, whether you intend for it to be or not.

Ah yes, the communist technonightmare that is "limited copyright terms." 20th century America (before the 70s when the Disney shills started lobbying Congress) gave you 28 years after publication, and then you and your heir could renew it for another 28 years. Seems pretty reasonable to me. Not some bullshit where your great-grandaddy strummed and mumbled his ways through a blues song people liked 75 years ago so you get a fat check everytime it shows up in some shitty movie set in the 50s.

AnOminous · Aug 14, 2023

DamnWolves! said:
Does copyright doctrine have its problems? Absolutely. Is the concept of "you and your people should own the shit you make" one of them? Probably not.

The concept of copyright is pretty novel. It didn't exist at all for most of human history. Not until the Statute of Anne in 1710 was there even such a concept, and even then, it was limited to 14 years and 21 for books already in print. It's a modern invention. It is not something inherently moral.

Its purpose was to encourage the creation of new works by having a limited term of protection essentially giving a monopoly to the creator.

When that so-called "limited" term is just jacked up arbitrarily any time Disney is about to lose something to the public domain, this entire concept goes down the toilet.

When it is used by corrupt shysters like the plaintiffs in this case to suppress the preservation of works these fuckers aren't even commercially exploiting themselves, these fuckers need to be put up against a wall. And then sprayed with a squirt gun of course, something totally harmless like that.

pikachudidnothingwrong · Aug 15, 2023

AnOminous said:
The concept of copyright is pretty novel. It didn't exist at all for most of human history. Not until the Statute of Anne in 1710 was there even such a concept, and even then, it was limited to 14 years and 21 for books already in print. It's a modern invention. It is not something inherently moral.

Its purpose was to encourage the creation of new works by having a limited term of protection essentially giving a monopoly to the creator.

When that so-called "limited" term is just jacked up arbitrarily any time Disney is about to lose something to the public domain, this entire concept goes down the toilet.

When it is used by corrupt shysters like the plaintiffs in this case to suppress the preservation of works these fuckers aren't even commercially exploiting themselves, these fuckers need to be put up against a wall. And then sprayed with a squirt gun of course, something totally harmless like that.

So much all of this. I try to point this out whenever I can.

It wasn't meant as a license of ownership over something, it was just a temporary protection to makes sure the creators actually made some money and were not cut out from their own work by bigger players. The way people use it today and talk about CR holders like they have absolute moral/ethical/legal right to do whatever they wish, is fucked up! And as you pointed out, it was to ensure the creation of more works.. One thing you didn't touch on is how not only is this intent forgotten/ignored, it's outright subverted. CR is now used to ensure that big players are able milk old creations till the end of time. That they're able to sell you the same media over and over again on different platforms.

It's hilarious how disney made it's name and money on other peoples ideas, ideas that it would never have been free to use under the CR laws that it created.

Again, your reminder that the CR system needs to be utterly and completely burned to the ground and only then should we start thinking about it's replacement!

The Mass Shooter Ron Soye · May 17, 2024

Internet Archive Fails to Dismiss Record Labels’ Copyright Lawsuit

https://archive.ph/dmf7H

5/16/2024 by Ernesto Van der Sar

Several major music labels, including Capitol, Sony, and UMG, sued the Internet Archive last year over its 'Great 78' phonograph archiving project. With hundreds of millions of dollars in potential damages at stake, IA filed a motion to dismiss, hoping to end the matter swiftly. The court, however, was not convinced.

The non-profit Internet Archive (IA) aims to preserve history in a digital format for generations to come.

The organization literally archives key parts of the Internet, copying older versions of websites to preserve them for future generations. This information becomes more and more valuable as time passes by.

IA’s archiving work is not limited to websites either; it also helps to permanently archive video, software, games, and music. This includes efforts to digitally capture the unique sound of old gramophone music recordings, as its physical carriers are subject to decay and will eventually become unplayable.

The Great 78 Project

Six years ago, the Archive teamed up with other libraries and experts to archive the sounds of 78-rpm gramophone records, which are obsolete today. In addition to capturing their unique audio, including all crackles and hisses, this saves unique recordings for future generations before the vinyl or shellac disintegrates.

The ‘Great 78 Project‘ received praise from curators, historians, and music fans. However, not all music industry insiders were happy with it, as the copying took place without obtaining permission from all rightsholders.

Last summer, a group of major music labels including Capitol, Sony, and UMG, decided to take action. In a complaint filed at a U.S. federal court in California, they sued the Internet Archive, its founder Brewster Kale, the Kahle-Austin Foundation, and others who they believe are responsible

“When Defendants exploit Plaintiffs’ sound recordings without authorization, neither Plaintiffs nor their artists see a dime. Not only does this harm Plaintiffs and the artists or their heirs by depriving them of compensation, but it undermines the value of music,” the labels wrote.

With 2,749 recordings at stake, the potential statutory damages could run to more than $400 million. However, the Internet Archive sees things differently, believing that the ‘Great 78 Project’ is fair use.

IA’s Motion to Dismiss

Earlier this year, the IA defendants responded with a motion to dismiss. While fair use was mentioned, they argued that the lawsuit should be thrown out because it was filed too late. The defendants were already aware of the alleged infringements more than three years ago, which is past the three-year stature of limitations for copyright infringement.

IA backed up this argument with a letter it received from the RIAA more than three years ago, which specifically complained about the ‘Great 78 Project’. That cease and desist notice didn’t list any specific recordings but referenced artists including Elvis Presley, Duke Ellington, and Billie Holiday. It further characterized IA as a platform that enables piracy on a massive scale, mentioning “thousands” of recordings.

“Your unauthorized reproduction, distribution and public performance of these recordings is a plain violation of the RIAA member companies’ rights under the Classics Protection and Access Act (‘Classics Act’), 17 U.S.C. § 1401, and constitutes nothing less than piracy on a massive scale,” RIAA’s letter reads.

According to the Archive, this clearly suggests that the labels, who are members of the RIAA, were aware of the issue more than three years before they filed their complaint. For this reason, it asked the court to dismiss the case.

Court Denies IA’s Motion

After reviewing IA’s arguments and the response from the record labels, U.S. District Court Judge Maxine Chesney denied the motion to dismiss. According to the Judge, it is not clear that the statute of limitations expired for all works.

The fact that the RIAA’s letter didn’t mention any specific infringements plays a crucial role here. While the music companies were clearly aware of the ‘Great 78 Project’, the letter doesn’t show that they were aware of all specific infringing copies at the time.

“[T]he letter on which defendants here rely does not identify any specific sound recording, let alone any of the Sound Recordings at Issue,” Judge Chesney writes.

“Although, at a later stage of the proceedings, Internet Archive Defendants may be able to use the letter to show one or more of the alleged acts of infringement described in the [amended complaint] occurred outside the limitations period, such showing has not been made at the pleading stage.”

Foundation’s Motion to Dismiss Fails Too

In addition to the main IA defendants, the Kahle-Austin Foundation also filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint (AC). The foundation is a donor to the Internet Archive and argued that the record labels failed to show that it knew of the alleged infringements, let alone that it contributed to them.

After reviewing the arguments from both sides, the court concludes that the Foundation’s motion to dismiss should be denied as well. The fact that the Foundation’s President, Brewster Kahle, also appears to be a driving force behind the Internet Archive’s ‘Great 78 Project’ plays a key role here.

“[T]he AC alleges ‘Kahle established the Foundation as his and his wife’s preferred vehicle for funding his favored projects, including Internet Archive’, and that Kahle ‘create[d]’ Internet Archive’s Great 78 Project, which Kahle described in an article he wrote as ‘[a]ll good” and “[a]ll fun’.

“In other words, the AC alleges that the purposes of the Foundation and the purposes of Kahle, the Foundation’s President, are one and the same,” Judge Chesney adds.

Kahle’s central position is a reason not to dismiss the complaint against the Foundation at this point, as it suggests that the foundation was likely aware of the allegedly infringing activity, and many have contributed to it, according to the letter of the law.

Based on these and other arguments, the court finds that it’s premature to dismiss any of the claims against the parties involved at this point. Of course, the case still has to be argued on its merits, and this ruling says nothing about other defenses, including the fair use arguments.

A copy of U.S. District Court Judge Maxine Chesney’s order on the motions to dismiss is available here (pdf)

skunt · May 17, 2024

The Mass Shooter Ron Soye said:
IA’s Motion to Dismiss

I can't decide if this is incredibly ballsy or incredibly stupid. They were warned and given a cease and desist, continued doing it for three years and think that because they weren't sued in those three years, that they're home free?

And what if they did get sued inside those three years?
Oh no, it's the consequences of your actions - which you were aware of and warned of. Cool project with good intentions or not, it doesn't deserve to live.

UCHUBomb · May 17, 2024

They deserve it for taking down their archive of Stickdeath.com.

Markass the Worst · May 17, 2024

Bad things happening to bad people? Their archive is almost worthless, anyway, since they censor at trannies' every demand. Only good thing is their crawler.

Jet Fuel Johnny · May 17, 2024

UMA is the sleaziest motherfuckers out there and I hope the court pushes their shit in.

How sleezy?

Go ahead and have your kid sing a little song they make up. Any song. It can be "I like my shoes and eating the dog's food!" and within 10 minutes UMA will have copyright claimed your video.

"The artists and their heirs won't get paid!" they scream.

While they never pay said artists or heirs.

It's all about THEM getting the fucking money.

They're the ones who have made it so you can't play the in-game radio, or get your channel a strike because of loading screen music.

Fuck UMA.

The Mass Shooter Ron Soye · May 17, 2024

Markass the Worst said:
Bad things happening to bad people? Their archive is almost worthless, anyway, since they censor at trannies' every demand. Only good thing is their crawler.

There's plenty of good stuff there, probably flying under the radar because of obscurity or the sheer size of the archives.

https://archive.org/details/complete_metokur_archive

XYZpdq Jr. · May 17, 2024

Markass the Worst said:
Their archive is almost worthless, anyway

their website archiving is worthless, and their search engine is worse
as a file dump they're quite useful

Rome's rightful successor · May 17, 2024

Markass the Worst said:
Bad things happening to bad people? Their archive is almost worthless, anyway, since they censor at trannies' every demand. Only good thing is their crawler.

When did that happen? Wasn't that the other archive website?

XYZpdq Jr. · May 17, 2024

Rome's rightful successor said:
When did that happen? Wasn't that the other archive website?

iirc archive org has bent the knee to takedown requests basically always

KeatonKoopa · Sep 5, 2024

Well they lost the case against publishers yesterday.

Law Internet Archive (Archive.org) sued over the National Emergency Library by publishers - Publishers: "Pay up"

Attachments

You CAN'T NOT DO IT!

Internet Archive’s Copyright Battle with Publishers Leads to Lending Restrictions​

Mass Copyright Infringement or Fair Use?​

Liability Ruling and Consent Judgment​

Covered Books?​

Next Chapter​

Attachments

Anime avatar supremacist

Anime avatar supremacist

SOMEBODY SET UP US THE BOMB

Pika Pika!

You CAN'T NOT DO IT!

The Great 78 Project​

IA’s Motion to Dismiss​

Court Denies IA’s Motion​

Foundation’s Motion to Dismiss Fails Too​

Morning! Have a ship!

don't do stance, kids

Full Metal Sperg

You CAN'T NOT DO IT!

on the fbi dumbasstic terror list

Holy, Roman, and an Empire

on the fbi dumbasstic terror list

Internet Archive’s Copyright Battle with Publishers Leads to Lending Restrictions

Mass Copyright Infringement or Fair Use?

Liability Ruling and Consent Judgment

Covered Books?

Next Chapter

The Great 78 Project

IA’s Motion to Dismiss

Court Denies IA’s Motion

Foundation’s Motion to Dismiss Fails Too