
The Internet Archive is ending its free books program - Kairon
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/11/books/internet-archive-national-emergency-library-coronavirus.html
======
duxup
The decision to do what they did is mind boggling.

I can only assume they were caught up in the atmosphere of unknown that was
COVID... and somehow decided that their actions made sense.

It was poor judgment executed on a huge scale that potentially puts the whole
Internet Archive at risk.

I would love to have been able to hear what the discussions were surrounding
that decision and if / how they dealt with the obvious objection of "hey guys
this is illegal".

~~~
boomboomsubban
They published a blog post explaining why they saw this as legal, and at the
least it doesn't seem as clear cut as you imagine.

~~~
kevindong
The original model (lending out one digital copy per physical copy held) has
merit [0]. It's called "controlled digital lending."

The issue is that the Internet Archive is lending out unlimited digital copies
if they hold even one physical copy. At best, that's a legally dubious
position. The Internet Archive even admits this practice wouldn't qualify as
"controlled digital lending." [1]

[0]: [https://help.archive.org/hc/en-
us/articles/360042654251-Nati...](https://help.archive.org/hc/en-
us/articles/360042654251-National-Emergency-Library-
FAQs#h_11e65d8d-badc-499a-aa93-8242abbab2e3)

[1]: [https://help.archive.org/hc/en-
us/articles/360042654251-Nati...](https://help.archive.org/hc/en-
us/articles/360042654251-National-Emergency-Library-
FAQs#h_994793fd-f604-4dda-a781-e5571f3ee117)

~~~
boomboomsubban
>At best, that's a legally dubious position.

Hence the lawsuit. The internet Archive is arguing this as part of the CDL's
"fair use" portion. Presumably they view the program as allowing libraries to
continue offering their "vital function to society" while being closed.

[http://blog.archive.org/2020/03/30/internet-archive-
responds...](http://blog.archive.org/2020/03/30/internet-archive-responds-why-
we-released-the-national-emergency-library/)

------
katktv
This whole copyright case is a whole load of bollocks. Hope that Internet
Archive will fend that off, because otherwise it would be a very tragic loss
for the internet.

~~~
duxup
I wonder how they can fend it off?

It seems like their actions were illegal in the most obvious way. I don't
think there's much grey area here.

~~~
adrianN
Imo the goal for the IA must be to haggle down the ridiculous damage claims to
something that they can pay via donations.

~~~
duxup
I'm hoping that's the case. I'd like to see it settled in a way that preserves
IA.

------
ikeboy
It's ending its unlimited free books program, and going back to the old
version, which is limited.

~~~
jawns
To be more precise, it is returning to Controlled Digital Lending
[https://controlleddigitallending.org](https://controlleddigitallending.org),
where it lends out one digital copy for each physical copy it has purchased or
acquired. CDL is unlikely to face major legal challenges, because it's
effectively lending the digital copies exactly as if they were print copies.

The issue that caused all the outrage was the National Emergency Library
program, where the Internet Archive was simultaneously lending out an
unlimited number of digital copies of a book, regardless of whether it only
possessed one physical copy.

This is (on its face) a violation of copyright. Under the first-sale doctrine,
you're free to lend out a copy you've purchased. But you aren't free to make
unlimited copies of a copy you've purchased and lend them out.

~~~
jrochkind1
The publisher's believe the CDL is illegal too, and are suing on this basis
too. From the article:

> The lawsuit, filed June 1, does not just object to the National Emergency
> Library but to the way Internet Archive has long operated. Traditional
> libraries pay publishers licensing fees, and agree to terms that restrict
> how many times they can lend an e-book. Internet Archive, by contrast, takes
> books that have been donated or purchased, scans them and posts them online.

~~~
jawns
I am an author, and three of my books were published by one of the Big Four
publishers who are suing the Internet Archive.

I fully support the publishers' complaint against the National Emergency
Library program. Lending out more copies than you own is the same as making
unauthorized copies of copyrighted works, and it should be stopped.

But I do not share their opposition to Controlled Digital Lending. I think it
is a reasonable system of lending that attempts to achieve parity with lending
of physical copies, and I think it has a good chance of being defensible in
court.

Of course, I know why these publishers oppose CDL. E-book licensing is an
income stream they don't want to dry up. And it's quite possible that losing
that income stream might mean that they will need to make cutbacks or reduce
the number of titles they publish, which could be bad for authors. But I can't
see how CDL can be a violation of copyright when lending physical copies under
the same terms is not.

------
tehjoker
This is very unfortunate. I agree they probably infringed on copyright, but I
also think they were in the right. If we respected the law in this emergency
when none of our social systems could cope with unprecedented crisis, the
human costs would mount even higher.

The publishers will continue to do what's in their interest (immorally imo),
but what they could have done instead was jump onboard and say yes these books
will be offered for the duration of the crisis.

Of course, I feel that publishing should be at least partially publicly funded
so that copyright wouldn't be a concern and we could read everything for free
above production cost and authors would get paid. However, the private system
should have at least tried to legitimize itself by providing necessary
services for the public instead of continuing to deprive people of what they
need out of concern for their own profits.

~~~
orev
IA could have easily coordinated with publishers beforehand and got them on
board as a good publicity opportunity. Instead they did it on their own, very
clearly violating the copyrights.

Like it or not, copyright holders can set whatever terms they want on the
material they own. That includes making choices that you think are dumb or bad
for business. It’s not the job of copyright to ensure companies serve the
public good or even do things that keep them in business. That’s up to the
market.

~~~
clairity
_we_ are the market, and the market is expressing its will (here and
elsewhere), like it or not.

~~~
orev
The only decision the market is allowed to make is “do I buy this, yes or no?”
It (you) doesn’t get to change the rules whenever it feels like it when you
don’t feel like paying for something.

~~~
clairity
no, that’s a pedagogical model of a market. real markets are rich in
information channels going every which way that also inform price, product,
etc. (i.e., marketing). real markets are highly and nonlinearly dynamic.

------
cloudc0de
Interesting to see the HN community at large suddenly supporting copyright law
status-quo...

~~~
godzillabrennus
I think most people agree that creators should be paid. It’s the greed of big
publishing companies (especially in research) that drive people up a wall with
anger.

~~~
zucker42
IA likely also agree that creators should be paid.

~~~
ApolloFortyNine
And how did they expect them to get paid when they were giving away unlimited
copies of the authors books?

------
boomboomsubban
The free books program that they had already planned on ending on June 30th.

------
pnathan
I can't say I'm surprised; it was a lot of legal risk. But also, not a fan of
copyright as-is. It's a real mickey mouse game, and it's not authors walking
away with the fat paychecks.

------
samizdis
As discussed quite a bit:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23485182](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23485182)

------
aurizon
I wonder if something like this could assist the archive. As legal costs
mounts, they could scatter their library and make it all free forever - not
even those lending limits with Controlled Digital Lending will remain. Might
make the publishers come to a truce, since they must fund the lawsuit as there
is no pot of gold in the archives to give a contingency law firm to take it
on. Get China on board for the good it's billions of citizens!!

[https://sci-hub.tw/](https://sci-hub.tw/)

~~~
sp332
"Let's say you wanted to back up the Internet Archive"

[https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/h02jl4/lets_sa...](https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/h02jl4/lets_say_you_wanted_to_back_up_the_internet/)

------
EamonnMR
Unfortunately, I think this is the right decision. Books can and will be
archived by publishers; The Internet Archive is most important as a repository
of culture that won't be preserved any other way.

