nytimes.com
www.nytimes.com

When libraries across the country temporarily closed in the early days of the pandemic, the Internet Archive, an organization that digitizes and archives materials like web pages and music, had the idea to make its library of scanned books free to read in an online database.

The question of that library’s legality became a long-running saga that may have finally ended on Wednesday, when an appeals court affirmed that the Internet Archive violated copyright laws by redistributing those books without a licensing agreement.

The decision, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Manhattan, is a victory for the major book publishers that brought the lawsuit in 2020, and could set a precedent over the lawfulness of broader digital archives.

A federal court ruled against the Internet Archive in March 2023, and the archive removed many works from its online library of books. It appealed the decision last September.

A final appeal could potentially be taken to the Supreme Court. In a statement, the Internet Archive said it was “reviewing the court’s opinion and will continue to defend the rights of libraries to own, lend and preserve books.”

In its appeal, the nonprofit argued that its Free Digital Library was protected by so-called fair use laws, and that scanning the books was a transformative use of the material done in the public interest. The court firmly rejected that claim.

“People are worried about book bannings and the defunding of libraries, but I don’t know that there is really an awareness of what’s going on in the movement toward license-only access to electronic material,” Brewster Kahle, the founder and digital librarian of the Internet Archive, said in an interview on Wednesday.

Libraries are “not just a Netflix reseller of books to their patrons,” he added. “Libraries have always been more than that.”

Unlike traditional libraries, which pay licensing fees to publishers to make their books available for lending, the Internet Archive acquires copies through donated or purchased books to scan and put online. The nonprofit is also known for the Wayback Machine, a popular database of past web pages.

Archive link

  • Alsephina@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
    3011·
    2 months ago

    This is why stuff like this should be hosted in Russia or China…

    • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
      153·
      2 months ago

      Really? Both of those countries have tight controls over their intranets.

      Kazakhstan, on the other hand, has done quite well with a similar enterprise….

    • Daxtron2@startrek.website
      1815·
      2 months ago

      ah yes two countries that are well known for their freedom and easy access to information. gtfoh

      Criticize authoritarian governments and who shows up? Hexbear squad

      • Alsephina@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
        381·
        2 months ago

        Tons of piracy sites are hosted in Russia. They’re comparatively lenient on it.

        • RubicTopaz@lemmy.world
          131·
          2 months ago

          Yeah that idiot probably doesn’t have much experience pirating.

          cs.rin.ru, kemono.su, rutracker.net, etc. are all in Russia. Their social media platform Vkontakte is also full of pirated content. Hosting this in the US instead was doomed from the start.

          • Daxtron2@startrek.website
            44·
            2 months ago

            Its not just about pirated content it’s about censorship from the state. Do you think China will have no issue with all of the things hosted on the archive that directly go against their ideology? Host in a country that isn’t a totalitarian state.

      • FuckyWucky [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
        242·
        2 months ago

        US is literally the worst country to host “copyrighted” content. It’s a oligarch run shithole, all the courts work for them.

        Heck even western Europe clears the US.

      • brainw0rms [they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
        211·
        2 months ago

        clearly, freedom and easy access to information has nothing to do with the issue at hand, which is enforcement of copyright law.

        so long as they don’t plan on violating russian or chinese (or whatever country’s) copyrights (and other applicable laws), why should those countries care at all? archive.org is hosting material copyrighted in a country where said copyright can be enforced (the US). it’s really that simple. while china or russia may not be the most suitable option (I imagine they also host plenty of content that those countries would find to be inflammatory or illegal but not for copyright reasons), they’d be an improvement overall.