The Internet Archive is defending its digital library in court today - Based Internet Archive vs Greedy (((publishers)))

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Book publishers and the Internet Archive will face off today in a hearing that could determine the future of library ebooks — deciding whether libraries must rely on the often temporary digital licenses that publishers offer or whether they can scan and lend copies of their own tomes.

At 1PM ET, a New York federal court will hear oral arguments in Hachette v. Internet Archive, a lawsuit over the archive’s Open Library program. The court will consider whether the Open Library violated copyright law by letting users “check out” digitized copies of physical books, an assertion several major publishers made in their 2020 suit. The case will be broadcast over teleconference, with the phone number available here.

The Open Library is built around a concept called controlled digital lending, or CDL: a system where libraries digitize copies of books in their collections and then offer access to them as ebooks on a one-to-one basis (i.e., if a library has a single copy of the book, it can keep the book in storage and let one person at a time access the ebook, something known as the “own-to-loan ratio.”) CDL is different from services like OverDrive or Amazon’s Kindle library program, which offer ebooks that are officially licensed out by publishers. It’s a comparatively non-standard practice despite implementation in places like the Boston Public Library, partially because it’s based on an interpretation of US copyright doctrine that hasn’t been strictly tested in court — but this is about to change.

This lawsuit wasn’t actually spurred by classic CDL. As physical libraries closed their doors in the first months of the coronavirus pandemic, the Internet Archive launched what it called the National Emergency Library, removing the “own-to-loan” restriction and letting unlimited numbers of people access each ebook with a two-week lending period. Publishers and some authors complained about the move. Legal action from Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, John Wiley & Sons, and Penguin Random House — a list that includes three of the print industry’s “Big Five” publishers — followed soon after.

The lawsuit takes aim at the Internet Archive’s response to the pandemic, but its arguments are much broader

Publishers took aim not just at the National Emergency Library, however, but also at the Open Library and the theory of CDL in general. The service constitutes “willful digital piracy on an industrial scale,” the complaint alleged. “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. With just a few clicks, any Internet-connected user can download complete digital copies of in-copyright books.” More generally, “CDL is an invented paradigm that is well outside copyright law ... based on the false premise that a print book and a digital book share the same qualities.”

The Internet Archive isn’t the only library or organization interested in CDL, and its benefits go beyond simple piracy. As a 2021 New Yorker article outlines, licensed ebooks give publishers and third-party services like OverDrive almost absolute control over how libraries can acquire and offer ebooks — including letting them set higher prices for libraries than they would for other buyers. (In 2021, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) took publishers to task for “expensive, restrictive” licensing agreements.) Libraries don’t own the ebooks in any meaningful sense, making them useless for archival purposes and even letting publishers retroactively change the text of books. And many books, particularly obscure, older, or out-of-print ones, don’t have official ebook equivalents.

Publishers can offer unique benefits, too, like the obvious fact that they let libraries get around literally scanning the books. Unofficial scans are sometimes rough and inconvenient compared to, say, a neatly formatted Kindle title. Even in a world where CDL was uncontroversial, many libraries might choose to go with official licensed versions. But there are clear reasons why libraries would want the option to digitize and lend their own books, too. CDL advocates argue it’s philosophically akin to conventional lending, which also lets lots of people access the same book while only purchasing it once.

The legal situation is much dicier and depends on how you interpret earlier cases about US fair use rules, which let people use copyrighted material without permission. On one hand, the publishers’ reference to “illegally scanned books” notwithstanding, courts have protected the right to digitize books without permission. A 2014 ruling found that fair use covered a massive digital preservation project by Google Books and HathiTrust, which scanned a vast number of books to create a database with full searchable text.

“The Open Library is not a library, it is an unlicensed aggregator and pirate site.”

On the other, services like ReDigi — which let people place music files that they owned in a digital “locker” and sell them — have been shut down by courts. So have services like Aereo, which tried to get around paying rebroadcasting fees by receiving individual over-the-air TV signals from tiny antennas and streaming them to subscribers. Both cases involved someone trying to use a digital file in an unapproved way, and neither made much progress. CDL legal theorists argue that the ReDigi case doesn’t spell doom for unauthorized library ebook lending, but until a court rules, we won’t know.

The publishers’ complaint also relies heavily on arguing the nonprofit Internet Archive isn’t running a real library. As one header put it, “The Open Library is not a library, it is an unlicensed aggregator and pirate site.” Among other things, publishers argue that the organization is a commercial operation that’s received affiliate link revenue and has received money for digitizing library books. In a response, the Internet Archive says it’s received around $5,500 total in affiliate revenue and that its digital scanning service is separate from the Open Library.

American fair use law depends on balancing several factors. That includes whether the new work is transformative — basically, whether it serves a purpose different from the copyrighted work it’s using — as well as how it affects the original work’s value and whether the new work is a commercial product. (Contrary to one popular misconception, commercially sold work isn’t automatically disqualified from fair use protections.) Whatever judgment a court makes will be specific to the Internet Archive’s fairly unique situation.

But the ruling may lay out broader principles and reasoning that could affect any attempt to repurpose physical books in ways publishers don’t approve of. Digital rights organization Fight for the Future has supported the Internet Archive with a campaign called Battle for Libraries, arguing that the lawsuit threatens the ability of libraries to hold their own digital copies of books. “Major publishers offer no option for libraries to permanently purchase digital books and carry out their traditional role of preservation,” the site notes. “It’s important that libraries actually own digital books, so that thousands of librarians all over are independently preserving the files.”

And if the Internet Archive loses the case, it could potentially be on the hook for billions of dollars in damages. That could threaten other parts of its operation like the Wayback Machine, which preserves websites and has become a vital archival resource.

Either way, it’s a potentially landmark copyright case — and the arguments of both sides are getting their first real test later today.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Does the precedent this sets effect us or archive.today at all?
Hard to tell, but I dont think it can immediately or directly affect anyone else.

This centered around them taking copyrighted work, scanning and uploading it to the IA, and then lending copies of the copyrighted works out while trying to act like a digital library.

The vast majority of archived content on the web is already public without a price tag attached to it. And no one cares about the copyright. However, in the future, I could see some grifter having issue with someone archiving a page on their site and sharing that instead of traffic actually landing on their site. I guess we will see what happens
 
Well they can always move to iran where copyright laws don't apply.

What? isn't islam a feminist religion? a religion of peace? pack your bags hippie fag you're going to tehran.
This is a real quote the Internet Archive highlighted on their lobbying page (archive):
View attachment 4848577
These retards think that muhfeelz works in courts like it does IRL, probably because they see corps going 100% gay during pride and think their lawyers will back off if theres a tranny on the other side.

Think again idiots...
What makes me mad about the whole situation is that Internet Archive is the biggest, most brazen piracy site on the planet... but also the holder of the only copy of the "Wayback Machine" WWW archives. When they go out and poke the bear over how many copies of Harry Potter And The Dangerous Dildo they can loan out simultaneously, they're putting the actually valuable and irreplaceable parts of their operations at risk too.
Some people up top are looking forward to that. Archive links had been an afterthought until gamergate happened, that was the first time I saw those fuckers sweating bullets because suddenly they weren't in control of the narrative and that's when the press really went to war against archiving, not because of copyrights but because it let readers see the truth about the manipulation happening right under their noses.

Coincidentally this was also the time when snopes and wikipedia became corrupted and started editing articles to change history and protect the narrative, god forbid normies start "noticing things".
Thats more the fault of greedy mega corporations than the fault of the Internet Archive itself, unless they are taking things down on ideological grounds such as Moon Man or Murdoch Murdoch?
MM its cringe tho.
Some fat faggot named Rick weighs in.
View attachment 4872961
Link (archive)
Trannies are eviscerating his ass right now.
Correct me if I'm wrong on the concept. IA deserves to hurt but not if it means that copyright bullshit gets even worse.
The irony of the culture wars is that both sides are agreeing to shit that will screw them on the long-term but its cool because for a short time they get to own the other side.
You know, when Trump got elected, the internet archive put up a message that basically said "please help us move to Canada we don't want to die". I'll laugh at the irony when they die for non-Trump related reasons.
Got a link to that?
 
View attachment 4873716
yep, normies waking up to the issue.

Copyright

It's a domino effect so you better be prepped when it happens.

(full attack from any all activists on any & all archives of information / Copyrighted Material)



I am neutral on the issue but, know normies will forget in a week or month about the issue till the next domino falls.

the main issue is copyright rules which you have a good year to 2 years to attack because Mouse is weakened to lobby copyright .

Jon Hendren isn't a normie, he's a former Something Awful goon / @Fart on twitter mostly known for the infamous "EAT THE EGGS" thing with smash mouth.

He used to be like on of the most public facing goons.
 
I'm kind of a retard when it comes to copyright shit, what is the fallout of this? Since the suit was about books will this effect the entire site? Do they just have to take down the specific publishers works and pay any damages to them?

I just want to be able to download obscure pre turn of the millenia vidya man.
 
What was their thought process here? Trump's a businessman so he would immediately side with the corps to nuke IA off the net? How would being in Canada save them from that?
Based on all of the evidence, it would appear that their leadership is literally retarded.

I seriously hope someone with sense manages to fork the whole fucking wayback machine.

The people behind IA are retarded, troons, deeply disconnected from reality and above all else perpetually online. As good of a deed they do that does not help the fact they are all stupid.

They did a entire LARP about how Trump was gonna single handedly destroy the internet by removing section 230. Including such banger predictions like "Google and Youtube taken down" "physical copies of 1984 destroyed" "a massive conservative media conglomerate forms" and refusing to name the Chicom. I did a write up on it on their thread.

The fact they went ahead with such a retarded idea, poking the bear of copyright law jews like this instead of playing safe, is just another sign of their retardation destroying a good idea. Much like how they removed the Farms ignoring how it destroys the point of the concept of a Internet Archive.
 
we do know.
& the reason why people lack caring or do not care is gay optics of situations.
People only care when they reach the final conclusion of the issue to pick a side or be involved.
I wasn't talking about Kiwi Farms users, where the userbase is well aware of the dying big-I Internet and the need to archive everything, it's the average person, especially zoomers and younger who don't even remember how the Internet used to be.
 
I have been using their digital lending to read books to my son.

They have a great selection of children's books. It is going to be really sad that the lending is going to go away when they lose their appeal.

The wayack machine is extremely useful. I once found the documentation for an obscure 20+ year old library (Googling turned up nothing) to modify a internal tool we still use at work. The vendor's site no longer exists but IA has an old copy of it with it's downloadable PDFs.

There is no other site quite like the IA. Not even close. Its disappearance would be a great tragedy for the Internet.
 
If a publisher isn't publishing your books, it isn't because you're trans; it's because you're a shit writer. Apparently trans writers being shit writers is a common thing if this retard can't find any trans authors actually published.
with amazon books, any idiot can self publsh these days, its no longer an obstacle.
you can copyright your book, publish it and sell it without ever leaving your room.

and pay any damages to them?
if they cant do that, it may kill the site.
 
I do love the gaslighting on chuck question
1679789018784.png
Author Chuck Wendig said: “Libraries and librarians are champions of both the under-served reader and the under-seen writer. I used to work in the public library, and I cherished that the library helped writers find readers, and readers to find writers — and writers of every level, to boot, from midlist or bestseller or debut. It is vital we make sure these seeds are planted, watered, and allowed to grow unhindered.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
September 29, 2022
Signed by a vast and diverse list of authors, the letter decries conduct from major publishers and trade associations, including their lawsuit against the Internet Archive, demanding that they cease efforts to undermine the essential contributions of libraries to an accessible and inclusive world of books.

Over 300 authors including Neil Gaiman, Alok Menon, Naomi Klein, Saul Williams, Hanif Abdurraqib, Lawrence Lessig, Chuck Wendig, and Cory Doctorow have released an open letter in support of the continued role of libraries in the digital age.

It reads in part:

“Libraries are a fundamental collective good. We, the undersigned authors, are disheartened by the recent attacks against libraries being made in our name by trade associations such as the American Association of Publishers and the Publishers Association: undermining the traditional rights of libraries to own and preserve books, intimidating libraries with lawsuits, and smearing librarians.“

The full text of the letter, full list of signatories, as well as a form for more authors to sign on is available at http://FightForTheFuture.org/Authors-For-Libraries.

The letter demands that publishers, distributors, and trade associations:

Enshrine the right of libraries to own, preserve, and loan books on reasonable terms regardless of format
End lawsuits aimed to intimidate libraries or diminish their role in society
Halt industry-led smear campaigns against librarians
Notable among the signatories are Chuck Wendig and Neil Gaiman. Wendig initially criticized the Internet Archive’s temporary suspension of 1-owned-to-1-loaned restrictions during the first pandemic lockdown, but has since spoken out against major publishers’ lawsuit against the library, joining Gaiman. The suit seeks to end the Internet Archive’s Open Library Project, which partners with 80+ libraries including Boston Public Library, Milton Public Library, University of Arizona, and the Philadelphia Museum of Art to loan out digital scans of physical books the Internet Archive Library owns.

The suit’s scope reaches to the core of the right to own digital books. Briefs in the case are due October 7th. If publishers prevail, they will effectively terminate the rights of all libraries across the US to own, preserve, and loan digital books by “blocking” a practice called controlled digital lending—locking in licensing models with grave implications for readers’ safety.

These authors are joined by prominent technologists who have authored books, including Douglas Rushkoff, Stephen D. Crocker, Gustavo A. Rivera, Saul Aguiar, David J. Farber, Andrew Revkin, and Micah Sifry, as well as prominent published activists including Alyssa Milano, Medea Benjamin, Daniel Ellsberg, Baratunde Thurston, Tom Morello, and Lilly Wachowski (The Matrix).

Lia Holland, Campaigns and Communications Director of digital rights nonprofit Fight for the Future, which organized the letter, said: “For far too long, authors have been caught in an impossible bind: the publishers and trade associations they rely on for their livelihoods are acting against the interests of literally everyone but the most wealthy authors. Major publishers are reaping historic profits from underpaying, underpromoting, and undersupporting most authors, then double-dipping on their own abusive practices by standing up struggling authors as the reason publishers need even more power and control. Until now, authors have often been silent in their role as human shields to defend terrible behavior from industry titans and their armies of lawyers and lobbyists. This has to end, and authors taking back their voices for the sake of the libraries that have always championed authors, access, and diversity is the first step.”

Author Chuck Wendig said: “Libraries and librarians are champions of both the under-served reader and the under-seen writer. I used to work in the public library, and I cherished that the library helped writers find readers, and readers to find writers — and writers of every level, to boot, from midlist or bestseller or debut. It is vital we make sure these seeds are planted, watered, and allowed to grow unhindered.”

Author Cory Doctorow, whose forthcoming book Chokepoint Capitalism with fellow signatory Rebecca Giblin explores the harms of big content to creators, said: “Anyone who tells you libraries and authors are on the opposite side of *any* issue has grossly misunderstood the nature of libraries, or authors, or both. We are class allies and artistic comrades-in-arms.”

Poet and co-organizer Jonathan Mendoza said: “I want a future in which authors and artists are fairly compensated for their work and where their works can still be affordable and accessible to everyone most affected by capitalism and inequity. Libraries, and their ability to lend e-books in a reasonable manner, are key to this outcome. The ever-more-common profit-driven efforts of major publishers to drive up the cost to access literature should distress us all. I encourage authors to join this letter in support of libraries and of the more equitable and accessible future that our works so often seek to build.”

Author, PEN/Hemingway award winner, and first trans woman nominee for the Women’s Book Award Torrey Peters said: “I flat-out owe my career as a trans author to the unimpeded circulation of digital books: the first trans books that inspired me were digital, my own first books were published digitally. Book stores didn’t carry our books at first. Therefore, any readers that have felt their own emotions changed by my published work–no matter in what medium–ultimately also owe that change to digital books. Everybody benefits when digital books are accessible.”

Poet Yesika Salgado said: “Without libraries my peers and myself wouldn’t have had the access to literature that we identify with and encouraged us to tell our own stories. To restrict their abilities to loan books is to stifle voices like ours “

New York Times bestselling author Scott Carney said: “Libraries are a vital institution to cultivate engaged readers. Allowing them to carry books in formats that readers actually use only helps authors. Not allowing libraries to function puts the control of reading into the hands of big tech companies.”

Author Marianne Díaz Hernández said: “Libraries are the guardians and the bulwark of cultural diversity and inclusion, particularly for those who don’t have the means to access culture by other pathways. They are the place where people, particularly children, can access books and other materials about the topics that concern them, embarrass them, or that they don’t feel that they can talk with anyone else. The status of libraries as a place free of censorship and surveillance, to seek knowledge we need and stories that reflect us, is one of the keystones of a free, open, and democratic society, and every inch that we lose in this battle contributes to the disintegration of civic space.”

Author Prisca Dorcas Mojica Rodríguez and founder of Latina Rebels said: “Libraries should be protected, it is how I first discovered my love of reading. There is no me the author without public libraries.”

Author Elizabeth Kate Switaj said: “I write because I want to be read. My most recently published book is on the Internet Archive—and that delights me. I also make use of online archival material frequently in my creative and critical work. Moreover, as a college administrator in a small-island state (or, more accurately, a Big Ocean Nation), I know how important electronic resources are to global access and equity.”

Dan Gillmor, author and co-founder of News Co/Lab, an initiative to elevate news literacy and awareness at Arizona State University’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication, said: “Big Publishing would outlaw public libraries of it could — or at least make it impossible for libraries to buy and lend books as they have traditionally done, to enormous public benefit — and its campaign against the Internet Archive is a step toward that goal.”

Award-winning author David Weinberger said: “Publishers trying to limit the reach of libraries are hastening the death of literacy, of book culture, and of community pride in their educated differences.”

Author, and Faculty Affiliate at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society Sasha Costanza-Chock said: “It’s absolutely shameful that publishers would try to destroy the efforts of the Internet archive. The future is open access publishing!”

Author Ernie Smith said: “Closing off libraries to fair access in the digital age closes off one of the most important tools for research we have. The Internet Archive’s controlled digital lending approach is an excellent way to quickly research topics from primary sources that may not have digital equivalents. The library should be allowed to reasonably keep up with the times, and we should not allow publishers to attempt to redefine it just because the format is changing.”

Award-winning poet and Guggenheim Fellow Philip Metres said: “The public library, to me, is the closest thing to a church for everyone–a place where people seek stories and answers to every question under the sun. Those who threaten that sacred space, who seek to reduce access to that temple of learning and exploration, are a danger to democracy itself.”

Author Mirta Wake said: “Retracting the ability to read from the poor will not net you more sales, it will simply limit the reach that your work could have. Libraries that lend e-books tend to require those borrowing to have devices to read them on, while the electronic lending of books as if they were physical ones via a PDF allows you to access the book no matter what device you are using to read on. Furthermore taking down Internet Archive and forcing all into physical libraries to borrow physical books fails to account for a) the mobility status of the borrower (are they even able?) and b) the availability of libraries in their area in the first place as more and more libraries disappear off the map to never re-appear ever again.”

Author and Professor of Media Theory and Digital Economics at CUNY/Queens Douglas Rushkoff said: “Libraries rule. They are the clearest example of a commons that we can point to.”

Author Ashton Applewhite said: “Preserving traditional library rights is essential for free speech and the transmission of information in the digital age.”

Author Diana Rosen said: “Eternal vigilance is essential not for our democratic principles but for access to information, the key to an informed and responsive public. Long live our public libraries!”

Author Alex Benedict said: “Growing up in Brecksville, Ohio, my local parks system and library were my refuges. Beyond demanding that libraries be able to purchase books for permanent use in any format as well as be protected from lawsuits and harassment, I hope that small presses can establish closer relationships with libraries. Cleveland publisher and poet d.a.levy freely shared his books with many libraries across and beyond Ohio. Although many libraries may be resistant to alternative forms of literature, small presses and authors can set an example against conglomerate publisher financialization by taking sharing books with libraries.”

Engineer, VTuber, comedian, voice-over artist, digital content creator, and author Margaret Gel said: “Humanity will never be free, never colonize the stars, never advance as a species, as a people, as a civilization, as long as information remains shackled by Capitalism.”

Author and retired University of Oklahoma Professor Laura Gibbs said: “I make sure to upload all the books for which I control the rights to the Internet Archive: it’s the library I use most, and I am proud to see my books there.”

Prof. Dr. Ellen Euler said: “Libraries are crucial for a functioning democratic knowledge society. In times of multi-crises and populist propaganda, they should be able to fulfill their mission in the best possible way, including via digital and networked media!”

Author and poet Dominick Knowles said: “Solidarity with library workers, archivists, and all those who make public knowledge possible against the privatizing forces of capital.”

Author Robert Berger said: “Enough of Corporations trying to shove Artificial Scarcity down our throats!”

Author Steven K. Stroh said: “The Internet Archive is an absolute treasure of the modern era. As an author, I want my works to be made widely available to the public, in perpetuity, through non-commercial organizations such as Internet Archive.”

Author Jerry Michalski said: “Through their overzealous overprotection of intellectual property, the copyright industries have set civilization back considerably. Profit maximization and collective intelligence are at odds with each other.”

Author Ricardo Dominguez said: “Free Archives are the only manner of making sure that information will be available to all people now and in the future. We cannot fully depend on current and developing platforms for pay-only access to make knowledge available to all.”

Author Chris Tilly said: “Libraries are a cornerstone of democracy. They are at their best when they introduce people to new ideas, so it is critical that they present diverse views and experiences, and provide a wide range of published work.”

Sean O’Brien of Yale Privacy Lab said: “Just as the printing press and pamphleteers democratized the sharing of text and artwork centuries ago, we must fight to ensure that 21st Century reading and sharing includes creation and dissemination of digital copies as well as backups of books. Libraries are a public institution we should cherish, and librarians must be supported in their mission to archive and distribute public knowledge and creative works.”

Poet and writer Raina J. León said: “Ideas, imagination, compassion, community are the ways of life. Let us walk with that alignment and attunement!”

Poet and Pulitzer Finalist Evie Shockley said: “Let libraries & librarians do their job! As someone who couldn’t afford to buy even a fifth of the books I hungrily read growing up, I find it devastating to see the limitations that digital books are placing upon what library patrons will have access to.”

Author Jeff Sharlet said: “Libraries saved my life as a young reader, and I’ve seen them do as much and more for so many others. At a time when libraries are at the frontlines of fascism’s assault on democracy, it is of greater importance than ever for writers to stand in solidarity with librarians in defense of the right to share stories. Democracy won’t survive without it.”

Author Erin Taylor said: “The Internet Archive is a public good. Libraries are a public good. Only the most intellectually deprived soul would value profit over mass access to literature and knowledge.”

Author Kate Bornstein said: “I grew up in the 1950s and 60s. There was no internet, but there was the Asbury Park Public Library. That’s where I discovered books about the Weimar Republic, Magnus Hirschfeld, and American ex patriots living in Paris. I learned the word invert, and I knew that was me. It was a public library that laid open my horizons. with today’s attacks on LGBTQ people, we need libraries now more than ever.”

Author Mike Godwin said: “When you consider how many library patrons will become (or already are) lifetime book buyers, the shortsightedness of the publishers who attack libraries and librarians is stark. Fortunately for the rest of us, the librarians by temperament and training are used to taking the long view. America, I’m putting my geek shoulder to the wheel in support of librarians. (The librarians will quickly catch the allusion.)”

Author Zin E. Rocklyn said: “We must support libraries, librarians, and what they stand for: the freedom of diverse education.”

Author Andrea Vocab Sanderson said: “Representation is so important. Empowering people to share their narratives with the largest audience possible will be the most impactful for all generations.”

Author Rafael J. González said: “Libraries are sacrosanct keepers of the word; nothing must stand in the way of their sacred function.
after the fact not before the fact because of the mob
optics check piracy very preserving the memory?
1679789205008.png
1679789270075.png1679789440835.png
1679789639515.png1679789675674.png
1679789739087.png
1679789794237.png

best Based Opinion chuck Question
1679789342170.png
1679789510912.png
 
Last edited:
Maybe someone can explain all the doomposting to me. But, how I understand the situation, after reading the judges conclusions, is that they are no longer allowed to lend copyrighted books from those publishers except under the same rules as has been established by Google Books precedent. That's the extent of the ruling, it is extremely narrow.

I agree, this sucks, but, compared to the entirety of the IA, it is a small piece of it. Why is everyone acting like the entire IA is going to disappear? There doesn't seem to be any indication of that at all according to the judge's ruling. In fact, the judge couldn't have made the ruling any more reasonable as far as its impact on the IA, while still finding for the publishers.

Did I miss something?

If the IA wasn't retarded they'd take this very minor L and just walk away. They literally couldn't have asked for a more favorable, nuanced ruling with the judge still deciding for the other side. Sometime one has to accept a minor L and not keep pushing it so you manage to turn it into a huge L.
 
There's a lot of media that's either stopped being published or was never officially published as a standalone thing that's been vanishing the last few years due Copyright takedown system abusing scammers, as well as copyright holders, and IP squatters taking down any and all backups or archives. Media is being lost due to this, both shit and really good quality media. It's so fucking weird and I fucking hate it. They'll takedown claim shit that reuploads old out of print things but then they'll never fucking re-release those out of print things. This should not be something that is a problem and yet it is.
 
Did I miss something?
Yes, there's still the matter of damages. This summary judgement just means "We're skipping the trial and going right to the part where we decide your punishment".
The publishers are asking for all the "damages they suffered" because of IA's library program, and this is likely to be a massively inflated number, as is typical in these cases. (Clearly every single user who downloaded 'The Star Wars Juneteenth Cookbook' would have really bought a copy for $75 otherwise, right?) So the concern is that the stuff actually worth saving at IA might go down with the ship.
 
Maybe someone can explain all the doomposting to me. But, how I understand the situation, after reading the judges conclusions, is that they are no longer allowed to lend copyrighted books from those publishers except under the same rules as has been established by Google Books precedent. That's the extent of the ruling, it is extremely narrow.

I agree, this sucks, but, compared to the entirety of the IA, it is a small piece of it. Why is everyone acting like the entire IA is going to disappear? There doesn't seem to be any indication of that at all according to the judge's ruling. In fact, the judge couldn't have made the ruling any more reasonable as far as its impact on the IA, while still finding for the publishers.

Did I miss something?

If the IA wasn't retarded they'd take this very minor L and just walk away. They literally couldn't have asked for a more favorable, nuanced ruling with the judge still deciding for the other side. Sometime one has to accept a minor L and not keep pushing it so you manage to turn it into a huge L.
it's pretty much this
There's a lot of media that's either stopped being published or was never officially published as a standalone thing that's been vanishing the last few years due Copyright takedown system abusing scammers, as well as copyright holders, and IP squatters taking down any and all backups or archives. Media is being lost due to this, both shit and really good quality media. It's so fucking weird and I fucking hate it. They'll takedown claim shit that reuploads old out of print things but then they'll never fucking re-release those out of print things. This should not be something that is a problem and yet it is.
Back to Null overarching point of a good ideas ruined by trannies for optics (kiwifarms, bigots proving reality vs fiction), Old video/video games ip (money vs reselling member berry vs high cost for nostalgia on eBay), Old documents & websites, Duty to forget the past( let past die to kill it if you have too).
IA going under is no shock, but it does set a bad precedent as to what the future of archiving storage could do when it’s totally lost and/or controlled by higher ups that will use this as an excuse to take down smaller sites with the intention of wanting to archive sites.

Either way, this is (slightly) concerning.

Yes, there's still the matter of damages. This summary judgement just means "We're skipping the trial and going right to the part where we decide your punishment".
The publishers are asking for all the "damages they suffered" because of IA's library program, and this is likely to be a massively inflated number, as is typical in these cases. (Clearly every single user who downloaded 'The Star Wars Juneteenth Cookbook' would have really bought a copy for $75 otherwise, right?) So the concern is that the stuff actually worth saving at IA might go down with the ship.
Pretty Much Rom site punishment

Not only did a California federal court order the now-defunct RomUniverse to destroy all of its pirated Nintendo games, but it has also filed an injunction that ensures the site won't be allowed to come back online.

As reported by TorrentFreak, these new orders follow Nintendo's victory in the lawsuit against the ROM-hosting site RomUniverse that was seeking damages for copyright infringement and federal trademark infringement. While the court had initially ordered RomUniverse to pay Nintendo $2.1 million in damages, the punishment has now become more severe.
Back in May 2021, the court granted this $2.1 million summary judgment against RomUniverse operator Matthew Storman, but Nintendo was denied a permanent injunction that would forbid the site from staying online. One of the reasons was related to the fact that Storman had taken the site down, and the court saw this as a sign that there would be no future infringements.

However, Nintendo asked the court to reconsider, especially after Storman hinted that RomUniverse could have a potential comeback.

"Plaintiff’s evidence demonstrates a threat of continued infringement based on Defendant’s representations that he may relaunch his website which previously contained Plaintiff’s copyrighted games. Accordingly, Plaintiff demonstrates irreparable harm warranting an injunction for Plaintiff’s copyright infringement claim," The court said.
This injunction prohibits RomUniverse's operator to "copy, distribute, sell, or even play unauthorized copies of Nintendo games." It is also forbidden from using Nintendo trademarks, logos, or names in a "confusing" way.

Lastly, Judge Consuelo B. Marshall ordered that Storman must destroy all pirated Nintendo games by August 17, 2021.

"Defendant shall permanently destroy all unauthorized Nintendo games or other unauthorized copies of Nintendo's intellectual property including movies, books, and music no later than August 17, 2021; and Defendend shall file a declaration, under penalty of perjury, with the court certifying his compliance with these terms no later than August 20, 2021," the court wrote.
 
  • Horrifying
Reactions: Jonah Hill poster
Maybe someone can explain all the doomposting to me. But, how I understand the situation, after reading the judges conclusions, is that they are no longer allowed to lend copyrighted books from those publishers except under the same rules as has been established by Google Books precedent. That's the extent of the ruling, it is extremely narrow.

I agree, this sucks, but, compared to the entirety of the IA, it is a small piece of it. Why is everyone acting like the entire IA is going to disappear? There doesn't seem to be any indication of that at all according to the judge's ruling. In fact, the judge couldn't have made the ruling any more reasonable as far as its impact on the IA, while still finding for the publishers.

Did I miss something?

If the IA wasn't retarded they'd take this very minor L and just walk away. They literally couldn't have asked for a more favorable, nuanced ruling with the judge still deciding for the other side. Sometime one has to accept a minor L and not keep pushing it so you manage to turn it into a huge L.
Other people have responded in longer posts, but I'll sum it up: they're going to be so monumentally buttfucked by damages that the entire organization will go down. We just don't know to what degree of a monumental buttfuck it's going to be yet.
 
Other people have responded in longer posts, but I'll sum it up: they're going to be so monumentally buttfucked by damages that the entire organization will go down. We just don't know to what degree of a monumental buttfuck it's going to be yet.
Also for Heads Up, they will griff for the next 2 to 3 months before this is settled case. (money is going to them more than the lawyer for the case)

They will not try to fix this issue beyond what they have done now will say They are Bankrupt & closing down all sites related to them & wayback machine .

Grab what you can before closing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GloJojo
Back