As a strong supporter of the Internet Archive’s primary mission, I am saddened to say that the prosecution appears to have a strong case here. Controlled Digital Lending is a controversial legal theory, not something that has any clear statutory basis. The IA must now hope for some creative judicial interpretation to save them.<p>It’s doubly frustrating because I think the publishers would have let the IA fly under the radar had they stuck to lending on a strictly one-digital-loan for one-physical-copy basis. The National Emergency Library was a serious lapse of judgement - a moment of madness amongst a backdrop of widespread Covid madness. They poked the hornet’s nest. IMHO they should have immediately apologised, leant into it being an honest mistake during a unique historical event, and come to some minor financial settlement. Instead, they and the EFF are doubling down and risk being flattened with a severe bill for compensation.<p>I absolutely would support legislation to properly recognize CDL as a lawful function of libraries. Instead, all our hopes are pinned on the judicial branch doing the job of the legislative branch.<p>P.S. Donate to the IA here: <a href="https://archive.org/donate/" rel="nofollow">https://archive.org/donate/</a>
I really hope this isn't the end of the Wayback Machine. The IA being a centralized entity with an agenda not everyone agrees with was a problem not explored enough until it was too late.
> against our library and the longstanding library practice of controlled digital lending<p>Isn’t this… deliberately misleading? As I understand it there wasn’t really a problem until they decided to embark on “Uncontrolled” digital lending.
On one hand, we can keep acting like companies are good stewards of digital information or we can look at the reality that the industry (books, movies, media, etc) does a reliably bad job at keeping sources around.<p>Now it is possible to keep media around longer as a primary source which seems extremely valuable given the technology that exists. Copyright laws are due for an overhaul, and maybe we'll see something that embraces the fact that we have a new Gutenberg press capable of spreading information.<p>Anecdotally, I'm a bit tired of subscription services add/removing videos or books from their catalog. I have cancelled, since I don't want to pay to be gaslit that I saw something that "doesn't exist". I know, I'm not paying to have everything forever, I'm renting etc. However, whatever their licensing problem is, it is Not My Problem (tm), and so I voted with my wallet. I don't like when companies exploit object permanence in a way that makes me feel like I'm the crazy one.<p>Lend like print is a good model, but that creates more DRM, which on the long haul has not panned out in the technology world as a good thing. There has to be a balance, but what of the long view? Publishers need less execs/admin, as publishing costs are dropping very deeply.<p>I think Brewster Kahle and team are doing a great work, and I hope they win.
Does anyone know what the legal basis was for uncontrolled online Lending was in the first place that caused this mess? I don’t understand why IA is continuing to double down that this was legitimate behavior.
Good background here:<p><a href="https://slate.com/technology/2022/09/internet-archive-national-emergency-library-lawsuit.html" rel="nofollow">https://slate.com/technology/2022/09/internet-archive-nation...</a><p>I have this suspicion that the college textbook publishers in particular want to block CDL.
DRM, copyright, and the concept of lending online are impediments to access.<p>And, indefinite rent-seeking is ridiculous.<p>Let old data be archived and free.
Why do companies always sue the goodies as if that’s somehow going to save their failing business.<p>Spoiler: children are morons now. The book industry is dead. Their parents can barely read so they sure as hell aren’t going to teach their children to. Everything is iPads. Suing random people won’t change that. Books will live on, but as a niche product rather than a major industry.
Without taking a position on the legal arguments:<p>"How to participate in Monday’s oral arguments" is a deeply offensive thing to say. Once something reaches SCOTUS, it's strictly about matters of law. It's not a question of the merits or whether you like IA or not, and rooting is definitely inappropriate.