undefined | Better HN

0 pointsNemo_bis1y ago0 comments

Not really. I couldn't locate anywhere in the ruling an indication that the number of copies borrowed at any one time was a factor in the decision.

0 comments

dewey1y ago

That's unfortunately exactly what happened though:

> He unveiled the National Emergency Library, a vast trove of digital books mostly unavailable elsewhere, and made access to it a breeze. This good deed backfired spectacularly. Four publishers claimed “willful mass copyright infringement” and sued. They won. On Friday, the publishers said through their trade association that they had negotiated a deal with the archive that would remove all their copyright books from the site.

Source: https://archive.ph/tFMY1#selection-841.212-853.182

And here's the announcement from Archive.org when they rolled out this feature: https://archive.ph/vGoMq

Nemo_bisOP1y ago

There is no evidence that, under the NEL, more digital copies of books were borrowed than physical copies were (un)available in the closed libraries. I've not re-read all the materials from the lower court recently, but IIRC publishers didn't even bother to argue this point. Did you find any place where the judge relied on this?

dewey1y ago

> Both sides filed motions for summary judgment. Judge John G. Koeltl ruled on March 24, 2023, saying the National Emergency Library concept was not fair use, thus the Archive infringed copyright by lending full ebook copies without the waitlist restriction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hachette_v._Internet_Archive

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

dewey1y ago

That's unfortunately exactly what happened though:

Source: https://archive.ph/tFMY1#selection-841.212-853.182

And here's the announcement from Archive.org when they rolled out this feature: https://archive.ph/vGoMq

Nemo_bisOP1y ago

dewey1y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hachette_v._Internet_Archive

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse