Showing posts with label Internet Archive. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Internet Archive. Show all posts

Thursday, September 5, 2024

The Internet Archive Loses Its Appeal of a Major Copyright Case; Wired, September 4, 2024

Kate Knibbs, Wired; The Internet Archive Loses Its Appeal of a Major Copyright Case

"THE INTERNET ARCHIVE has lost a major legal battle—in a decision that could have a significant impact on the future of internet history. Today, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled against the long-running digital archive, upholding an earlier ruling in Hachette v. Internet Archive that found that one of the Internet Archive’s book digitization projects violated copyright law.

Notably, the appeals court’s ruling rejects the Internet Archive’s argument that its lending practices were shielded by the fair use doctrine, which permits for copyright infringement in certain circumstances, calling it “unpersuasive.”"

Saturday, March 18, 2023

The Internet Archive Is a Library; Inside Higher Ed, March 17, 2023

Dave HansenDeborah JakubsChris BourgThomas LeonardJeff MacKie-MasonJoseph A. Salem Jr.MacKenzie Smith, and Winston Tabb, Inside Higher Ed; The Internet Archive Is a Library

"Why is it so important to the publishers that the Internet Archive not be identified as a library? Primarily because Congress has long recognized the valuable role that libraries play in our copyright system and has created special allowances in the law for their work. In this suit, the publishers seek to redefine the Internet Archive on their own terms and, in so doing, deny it the ability to leverage the same legal tools that thousands of other libraries use to lend and disseminate materials to our users.

The argument that the Internet Archive isn’t a library is wrong. If this argument is accepted, the results would jeopardize the future development of digital libraries nationwide. The Internet Archive is the most significant specialized library to emerge in decades. It is one of the only major memory institutions to be created from the emergence of the internet. It is, and continues to be, a modern-day cultural institution built intentionally in response to the technological revolution through which we’ve lived."

Friday, January 6, 2023

The Top 10 Library Stories of 2022; Publishers Weekly, December 9, 2023

Andrew Albanese, Publishers Weekly; The Top 10 Library Stories of 2022

PW looks back at the library stories that captivated the publishing world this year, and what they portend for 2023

"6. A Federal Judge Blocks Maryland’s Library E-book Law

It was big news in 2021 when legislators in Maryland unanimously passed a law to protect libraries in the digital marketplace. But after the Association of American Publishers sued, a federal court struck the law down in February 2022.

Introduced in January 2021, the Maryland law emerged after more than a decade of tension in the library e-book market,with librarians complaining of non-negotiated, unsustainable prices for digital licenses. More specifically, the law came as a direct response to Macmillan’s controversial (and since-abandoned) 2019 embargo on frontlist e-book titles in libraries, which librarians rejected as fundamentally inequitable.

From the outset, however, the AAP insisted that Maryland’s law was preempted by the federal Copyright Act. And on February 16, federal judge Deborah Boardman agreed. “The State’s characterization of the Act as a regulation of unfair trade practices notwithstanding, the Act frustrates the objectives and purposes of the Copyright Act,” Boardman concluded in a 28-page opinion. In a subsequent June 13 opinion and order, Boardman issued a declaratory judgment deeming the Maryland law “unconstitutional and unenforceable.”

The decision, combined with an 11th-hour veto of a similar bill in New York in December 2021, has served the AAP’s aim, all but shutting down similar legislative efforts in at least six other states. But the library e-book market remains contentious, and as 2022 draws to a close, library advocates in several states tell PW they have not given up the fight and are working on revised legislative language that won’t run afoul of federal copyright law.

7. Lawsuit over Internet Archive’s Book Scanning and Lending Advances

After more than two years of legal wrangling, a federal judge in New York City is now ready to hear arguments for summary judgment in a contentious copyright case filed by four major publishers against the Internet Archive over its program that scans and lends digital scans of library books using a method known as controlled digital lending (CDL).

In a final round of briefs filed on October 7, attorneys for the publishers reiterated their contention that the IA’s program is blatant copyright infringement on a massive scale. “In the end, the Internet Archive asks this Court to adopt a radical proposition that would turn copyright law upside down by allowing IA to convert millions of physical books into e-book formats and distribute them worldwide without paying rights holders,” the publisher brief states.

Internet Archive lawyers counter that its scanning and lending of legally acquired books is legal, and that the evidence shows no market harm to the publishers. “All CDL does, and all it can ever do, is offer a limited, digital alternative to physically handing a book to a patron,” the IA brief states. “What the publishers who have coordinated to bring this lawsuit hope to obtain from this Court is not protection from harm to their existing rights. Instead, they seek a new right foreign to American copyright law: the right to control how libraries lend books.”

With the cross-motions for summary judgment now fully briefed, a hearing before Judge John G. Koeltl is likely the next step. But barring a settlement, the case will probably not be resolved anytime soon. If neither side prevails at the summary judgment stage, the case heads to a trial. And however the summary judgment ruling goes, an appeal is almost certain."

Friday, December 9, 2022

Column: Here’s why you can’t ‘own’ your ebooks; Los Angeles Times, December 8, 2022

 MICHAEL HILTZIK, Los Angeles Times; Column: Here’s why you can’t ‘own’ your ebooks

"What’s really happening here is that everyone involved — publishers, online distributors, authors and readers — is trying to come to terms with the capacity of digital technology to overthrow the traditional models of printing, selling and buying readable content. 

Publishers and authors are predictably, and rightly, fearful that they’ll lose out financially; but it’s also quite possible that, properly managed, the technological revolution will make them more money."

Friday, February 25, 2022

PRH, Internet Archive Clash Over ‘Maus’; Publishers Weekly, February 15, 2022

Calvin Reid, Publishers Weekly; PRH, Internet Archive Clash Over ‘Maus’

"However, Lisa Lucas, senior v-p and publisher of Pantheon Schocken, the PRH division which publishes Maus, denies the allegation. In response, Lucas emphatically denied the claim. “That is not true,” she said, framing the issue around copyright concerns rather than consumer demand. “Art Spiegelman has never consented to an e-book of Maus," Lucas said. "Therefore, PRH asked the Internet Archive to remove the PDF and stop pirating Maus because it violates Art Spiegelman’s copyright.”

Although best known for its collection of public domain titles, the Internet Archive also offers a lending library of more than 2 million modern titles “not in the public domain,” Freeland said. IA offers digital lending of these titles under a controversial policy called Controlled Digital Lending, or CDL, in which IA scans the book and lends out a PDF of the title, one copy per lender at a time, much like a physical book.

In June 2020, four publishers, including PRH, filed a lawsuit against the IA charging it with copyright infringement. The case is still working its way through the courts."

Friday, July 24, 2020

Internet Archive to Publishers: Drop ‘Needless’ Copyright Lawsuit and Work with Us; Publishers Weekly, July 23, 2020

Andrew Albanese, Publishers Weekly; Internet Archive to Publishers: Drop ‘Needless’ Copyright Lawsuit and Work with Us

"During a 30-minute Zoom press conference on July 22, Internet Archive founder Brewster Kahle urged the four major publishers suing over the organization’s book scanning efforts to consider settling the dispute in the boardroom rather than the courtroom.

“Librarians, publishers, authors, all of us should be working together during this pandemic to help teachers, parents, and especially students,” Kahle implored. “I call on the executives of Hachette, HarperCollins, Wiley, and Penguin Random House to come together with us to help solve the challenging problems of access to knowledge during this pandemic, and to please drop this needless lawsuit.”

Kahle’s remarks came as part of a panel, which featured a range of speakers explaining and defending the practice of Controlled Digital Lending (CDL), the legal theory under which the Internet Archive has scanned and is making available for borrowing a library of some 1.4 million mostly 20th century books."

Friday, June 12, 2020

Internet Archive ends “emergency library” early to appease publishers; Ars Technica, June 11, 2020

Timothy B. Lee, Ars Technica; Internet Archive ends “emergency library” early to appease publishers

Online library asks publishers to “call off their costly assault.”


"The Internet Archive has ended its National Emergency Library programs two weeks earlier than originally scheduled, the organization announced in a Wednesday blog post

"We moved up our schedule because, last Monday, four commercial publishers chose to sue Internet Archive during a global pandemic," the group wrote. The online library called on publishers to "call off their costly assault."

But that doesn't seem very likely. The Internet Archive isn't ending its online book lending program altogether. Instead, the group is returning to a "controlled digital lending" (CDL) model that it had followed for almost a decade prior to March. Under that model, the group allows only one patron to digitally "check out" a book for each physical copy the library has in stock. If more people want to read a book than are physically available, patrons are added to a waiting list until someone checks the book back in...

Experts have told Ars that the CDL concept has a better chance of winning approval from the courts than the "emergency library" idea with unlimited downloads. But the legality of CDL is far from clear. Some libraries have been practicing it for several years without legal problems. But publishers and authors' rights groups have never conceded its legality, and the issue hasn't been tested in court."

Monday, June 8, 2020

Publishers Sue Internet Archive Over Free E-Books; The New York Times, June 1, 2020

, The New York Times; Publishers Sue Internet Archive Over Free E-Books

Penguin Random House, HarperCollins, Hachette and Wiley accused the nonprofit of piracy for making over 1 million books free online.

"A group of publishers sued Internet Archive on Monday, saying that the nonprofit group’s trove of free electronic copies of books was robbing authors and publishers of revenue at a moment when it was desperately needed.

Internet Archive has made more than 1.3 million books available free online, which were scanned and available to one borrower at a time for a period of 14 days, according to the complaint. Then in March, the group said it would lift all restrictions on its book lending until the end of the public health crisis, creating what it called “a National Emergency Library to serve the nation’s displaced learners.”

But many publishers and authors have called it something different: theft.

“There is nothing innovative or transformative about making complete copies of books to which you have no rights and giving them away for free,” said Maria A. Pallante, president of the Association of American Publishers, which is helping to coordinate the industry’s response. “They’ve stepped in downstream and taken the intellectual investment of authors and the financial investment of publishers, they’re interfering and giving this away.”"

Wednesday, April 1, 2020

Copyright Alliance blasts Internet Archive’s Emergency Library launch as “vile”; ZDNet, March 31, 2020

, ZDNet; Copyright Alliance blasts Internet Archive’s Emergency Library launch as “vile”

The National Emergency Library opened to help learners “displaced” by COVID-19.

"The Authors Guild said that COVID-19 has been used "as an excuse to push copyright law further out to the edges" which, in turn, is causing authors that are already struggling to pay the bills additional harm...

"Acting as a piracy site -- of which there already are too many -- the Internet Archive tramples on authors' rights by giving away their books to the world," the group says.  
More criticism has come in the form of comments made by the Copyright Alliance, an organization that represents the rights of those in creative industries including authors and artists. CEO Keith Kupferschmid noted that creators are among the hardest hit at present, and while projects have been set up to help those in these industries, the executive said IA's project is making "things much worse for those that need our help.""

Sunday, March 29, 2020

Internet Archive offers 1.4 million copyrighted books for free online; Ars Technica, March 28, 2020

Timothy B. Lee, Ars Technica; Internet Archive offers 1.4 million copyrighted books for free online

Massive online library project is venturing into uncharted legal waters.


""The Internet Archive will suspend waitlists for the 1.4 million (and growing) books in our lending library by creating a National Emergency Library to serve the nation’s displaced learners," the Internet Archive wrote in a Tuesday post. "This suspension will run through June 30, 2020, or the end of the US national emergency, whichever is later."
The Tuesday announcement generated significant public interest, with almost 20,000 new users signing up on Tuesday and Wednesday. In recent days, the Open Library has been "lending" 15,000 to 20,000 books per day.
“The library system, because of our national emergency, is coming to aid those that are forced to learn at home,” said Internet Archive founder Brewster Kahle. The Internet Archive says the program will ensure students are able to get access to books they need to continue their studies from home during the coronavirus lockdown."

Tuesday, January 29, 2019

Video and audio from my closing keynote at Friday's Grand Re-Opening of the Public Domain; BoingBoing, January 27, 2019

Cory Doctorow, BoingBoing; Video and audio from my closing keynote at Friday's Grand Re-Opening of the Public Domain

"On Friday, hundreds of us gathered at the Internet Archive, at the invitation of Creative Commons, to celebrate the Grand Re-Opening of the Public Domain, just weeks after the first works entered the American public domain in twenty years.
 

I had the honor of delivering the closing keynote, after a roster of astounding speakers. It was a big challenge and I was pretty nervous, but on reviewing the saved livestream, I'm pretty proud of how it turned out.

Proud enough that I've ripped the audio and posted it to my podcast feed; the video for the keynote is on the Archive and mirrored to Youtube.

The whole event's livestream is also online, and boy do I recommend it."

Saturday, January 12, 2019

A Grand Re-Opening of the Public Domain by Internet Archive and Creative Commons: January 25, 2019

A Grand Re-Opening of the Public Domain

 
 
"Description 

Please join us on Friday, January 25, 2019 for a grand day celebrating the public domain!
Co-hosted by the Internet Archive and Creative Commons, this celebration will feature a keynote addresses by Lawrence Lessig and Cory Doctorow, lightning talks, demos, multimedia displays and more to mark the “re-opening” of the public domain in the United States. The event will take place at the Internet Archive in San Francisco.

Schedule of Events:

10am: Doors & Registration
10-11:45: Interactive public domain demos and project stations with organizations including Creative Commons, Internet Archive, Wikipedia, Authors Alliance, Electronic Frontier Foundation, California Digital Library, Center for the Study of the Public Domain, LightHouse for the Blind and Visually Impaired, the Cleveland Art Museum, and many more!
11:45-1pm: Lunch on your own in the Richmond District
1pm-6pm: Program of keynote speakers, lightning talks and panels highlighting the value and importance of the public domain
6pm-7:30pm: Reception

Speakers/Panelists Include:

Lawrence Lessig - Harvard Law Professor
Cory Doctorow - Author & Co-editor, Boing-Boing
Pam Samuelson - Berkeley Law Professor
Paul Soulellis - Artist & Rhode Island School of Design Professor
Jamie Boyle - Duke Law Professor & Founder, Center for the Study of the Public Domain
Brewster Kahle - Founder & Digital Librarian, Internet Archive
Corynne McSherry - Legal Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation
Ryan Merkley - CEO, Creative Commons
Jennifer Urban - Berkeley Law Professor
Joseph C. Gratz - Partner, Durie Tangri
Jane Park - Director of Product and Research, Creative Commons
Cheyenne Hohman - Director, Free Music Archive
Ben Vershbow - Director, Community Programs, Wikimedia
Jennifer Jenkins - Director, Center for the Study of the Public Domain
Rick Prelinger - Founder, Prelinger Archives
Amy Mason - LightHouse for the Blind and Visually Impaired
Paul Keller - Communia Association
Michael Wolfe - Duke Lecturing Fellow, Center for the Study of the Public Domain
Daniel Schacht - Co-chair of the Intellectual Property Practice Group, Donahue Fitzgerald LLP"

Thursday, December 6, 2018

Controlled Digital Lending Concept Gains Ground; Library Journal, November 15, 2018

Matt Enis, Library Journal; Controlled Digital Lending Concept Gains Ground

"A White Paper on Controlled Digital Lending of Library Books, by Courtney and coauthor David R. Hansen, associate university librarian for Research, Collections and Scholarly Communications, Duke University Libraries, was written in support of the position statement, and delves further into “the legal and policy rationales for the [CDL] process…as well as a variety of risk factors and practical considerations that can guide libraries seeking to implement such lending…. Our goal is to help libraries and their lawyers become more comfortable with the concept by more fully explaining the legal rationale for controlled digital lending, as well as situations in which this rationale is the strongest.”

The white paper notes that the Internet Archive’s “CDL-like” system has been in operation for eight years, and that the Georgetown Law Library operates a CDL service. But for the library field, the concept is still relatively new.

“This is how things start,” said [Kyle K. ] Courtney [copyright advisor for Harvard University]. “You put out a position statement, you back it up with a white paper, and you see the conversations that happen.” As libraries establish programs and platforms, use cases and best practices begin to emerge."

Thursday, September 27, 2018

Compromise Music Modernization Act Will Bring Old Sound Recordings into The Public Domain, Tiptoe Towards Orphan Works Solution; TechDirt, September 19, 2018

Mike Masnick, TechDirt; Compromise Music Modernization Act Will Bring Old Sound Recordings into The Public Domain, Tiptoe Towards Orphan Works Solution

"So, this new amended bill creates a very minor tiptoe towards an orphan works concept, just with sound recordings and only for "certain noncommercial uses of sound recordings that are not being commercially exploited." This is way, way, way too limited, but it's a start. Under the rules, someone engaged in non-commercial use (and boy, I can't wait to see the litigation fights over what counts as commercial v. non-commercial use...), has to make a "good faith, reasonable search" to see if a work is being commercially exploited. Following that, they have to file a notice with the Copyright Office announcing their intention to use the sound recording, allowing a 90 day period for someone to object. If there are no objections then, the work may be used in such non-commercial projects. This is extremely limited (way too much so), but hopefully will be useful to sites like the Internet Archive and various libraries. It would be nice if it went much further, but considering that no attempt to deal with orphan works has ever gone anywhere, this seems like at least a tiny step in the right direction. At the very least, hopefully it can be used to show that the world doesn't collapse when there is a way to make use of orphan works when the copyright holder cannot be found."

Wednesday, July 18, 2018

New Tool for Open-Access Research; Inside Higher Ed, July 9, 2018

Lindsay McKenzie, Inside Higher Ed; New Tool for Open-Access Research

"A new search engine that aims to connect nonacademics with open-access research will be launched this fall.

Get the Research will connect the public with 20 million open-access scholarly articles. The site will be built by Impactstory -- the nonprofit behind browser extension tool Unpaywall -- in conjunction with the Internet Archive and the British Library."

Wednesday, September 3, 2014

Tap millions of copyright-free book images via Flickr; CNet, 9/2/14

Michelle Starr, CNet; Tap millions of copyright-free book images via Flickr:
"The Internet is a magnificent resource -- and, Internet Archive believes, it has a lot of potential as a free library for researchers, historians, scholars and those who are just plain curious about the world.
And, with a new project, that library is getting bigger. In collaboration with the Internet Archive, Georgetown University academic Kalev Leetaru is in the process of uploading more than 14 million images from more than 2 million public domain e-books (more than 600 million pages) to Flickr.
The books, which are from the Internet Archive's library, span a period of 500 years and are automatically tagged thanks to a tool that scrapes the text before and after each image, making for a fully searchable database...
Leetaru and the Internet Archive plan to share the code with library partners, allowing them to add to the already extensive archive. Meanwhile, the Internet Archive Book Images Flickr page is available online for anyone to use."

Sunday, September 23, 2012

All the TV News Since 2009, on One Web Site; New York Times, 9/17/12

Bill Carter, New York Times; All the TV News Since 2009, on One Web Site: "The latest ambitious effort by the archive, which has already digitized millions of books and tried to collect everything published on every Web page for the last 15 years (that adds up to more than 150 billion Web pages), is intended not only for researchers, Mr. Kahle said, but also for average citizens who make up some of the site’s estimated two million visitors each day... The act of copying all this news material is protected under a federal copyright agreement signed in 1976. That was in reaction to a challenge to a news assembly project started by Vanderbilt University in 1968."

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Google Books Is Not a Library; Huffington Post, 10/13/09

Pamela Samuelson, Huffington Post; Google Books Is Not a Library:

"Sergey Brin published an op-ed in the New York Times last Friday likening the Google Book initiative to the famous ancient library of Alexandria. Brin suggested that Google Books would be "a library to last forever," unlike its Alexandrian counterpart that was ravaged by fire...

Unlike the Alexandria library or modern public libraries, the Google Book Search (GBS) initiative is a commercial venture that aims to monetize millions of out-of-print books, many of which are "orphans," that is, books whose rights holders cannot readily be found after a diligent search...

If Google Books was just a library, as Brin claims, library associations would not have submitted briefs expressing reservations about the GBS settlement to the federal judge who will be deciding whether to approve the deal. Libraries everywhere are terrified that Google will engage in price-gouging when setting prices for institutional subscriptions to GBS contents. Google is obliged to set prices in conjunction with a newly created Registry that will represent commercial publishers and authors. Prices for these subscriptions are to be set based on the number of books in the corpus, the services available, and prices of comparable products and services (of which there are none). Given that major research libraries today often pay in excess of $4 million a year for access to several thousand journals, they have good reason to be concerned that Google will eventually seek annual fees in excess of this for subscriptions to millions of GBS books. This is because Google will have a de facto monopoly on out-of-print books. The DOJ has raised concerns that price-setting terms of the GBS deal are anti-competitive.

Besides, Google can sell the GBS corpus to anyone without anyone's consent at any time once the settlement is approved...

Brin and Google's CEO Eric Schmidt have also been saying publicly that anyone can do what Google did--scanning millions of books to make a corpus of digitized books. They perceive Google to have just been bolder and more forward-looking than its rivals in this respect. But this claim is preposterous: By settling a lawsuit about whether scanning books to index them is copyright infringement or fair use, Google is putting at risk the next guy's fair use defense for doing the same...

Brin forgot to mention another significant difference between GBS and traditional libraries: their policies on patron privacy. The proposed settlement agreement contains numerous provisions that anticipate monitoring of uses of GBS content; so far, though, Google has been unwilling to make meaningful commitments to protect user privacy. Traditional libraries, by contrast, have been important guardians of patron privacy...

Anyone aspiring to create a modern equivalent of the Alexandrian library would not have designed it to transform research libraries into shopping malls, but that is just what Google will be doing if the GBS deal is approved as is."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pamela-samuelson/google-books-is-not-a-lib_b_317518.html

Friday, October 9, 2009

Google's Sergey Brin lashes out at critics of $125m book deal; Guardian, 10/9/09

Bobbie Johnson, Guardian; Google's Sergey Brin lashes out at critics of $125m book deal:

"Google co-founder Sergey Brin has hit out at critics who derailed the company's $125m deal with American publishers to give it the right to digitise millions of books...

In a column published in the New York Times, Brin - who founded the internet giant with Larry Page in 1998 - hit out at those objectors, called many of their accusations "myths" while dismissing other concerns as fantasy...

Brin's comments come a day after he came in for fierce criticism from Brewster Kahle, the founder of the non-profit Internet Archive, which has been working to secure a change in copyright law to help digitisation projects. In particular, the archive has been working to clarify the status of so-called "orphan" works - books whose copyright holder remains unknown - by pushing new legislation through the US Congress.

Under Google's proposal, the Californian internet company would have gained the exclusive right to sell advertising or access to orphan works - something Kahle felt was inappropriate.

"Many of us are objecting because we have been working together for years on the mass scanning of out-of-print books – and have worked to get books online for far longer than Google – and Google's 'settlement' could hurt our efforts," he wrote in a blog post on Wednesday. "A major part of our efforts have concentrated on changing the law so everyone would benefit."

"There is an alternative, and they know it — orphan works legislation — that up until the last session of Congress had been working its way through the house and senate. It was not perfect, but was getting close to what we need. Best yet, it passed one house — at least until Google effectively sideswiped the process with their settlement proposal."

In his editorial, Brin admitted that Google would have exclusive rights over such material, at least in the short term - but then suggested that Google's deal would actually help attempts to force through a legislative change.

"While new projects will not immediately have the same rights to orphan works, the agreement will be a beacon of compromise in case of a similar lawsuit, and it will serve as a precedent for orphan works legislation, which Google has always supported and will continue to support.""

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/oct/09/google-books-brin