<story><title>The Internet Archive has lost its appeal in Hachette vs. Internet Archive</title><url>https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca2.60988/gov.uscourts.ca2.60988.306.1.pdf</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>cmiles74</author><text>How was the CDL hurting working authors? A library bought the book, paying the publisher and the author. The IA scanned the book for digital lending, this digital copy could only be checked out by one person and only when the physical book was not also checked out.&lt;p&gt;I understand the court decided this wasn&amp;#x27;t okay. That aside, how was it hurting working authors?</text></item><item><author>doublescoop</author><text>This wasn&amp;#x27;t a case of the estates of dead authors trying to hold onto rights. Working authors were actively being harmed by the activities of the IA through the CDL. Working authors were met with refusals to meet to discuss this issue.&lt;p&gt;I don&amp;#x27;t think that characterization of Kahle is unfair at all. His position was unreasonable, determined to be illegal, and damaging to people who depend on copyright to license their work.</text></item><item><author>teruakohatu</author><text>&amp;gt; In his many interviews with U.S. media, he portrays the court cases and legal judgements as a crusade against the Internet Archive and all librarians. It&amp;#x27;s not. It&amp;#x27;s the logical outcome of one man&amp;#x27;s seemingly fanatical conviction against the law and the people who work very hard to bring new books into being.&lt;p&gt;If IA had won, IA would be hailed as a cultural hero. They hit and they missed. Claiming Brewster Kahle is against &amp;quot;the people who work very hard to bring new books into being&amp;quot; is unfair. The copyright goalposts have moved so far past where they were originally, the people who work very hard can be dead for decades and their works still in copyright, and by the time they are dead for 70 years, the copyright will probably be extended again.</text></item><item><author>ilamont</author><text>This has been playing out for many years. And it&amp;#x27;s all because Brewster Kahle decided that an overly broad interpretation of the Internet Archive&amp;#x27;s mission trumped the rights of authors and publishers, and the laws of the United States.&lt;p&gt;When IA was asked to stop CDL - many times - he continued. The National Writers Union tried to open a dialogue as early as 2010 but was ignored:&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;The Internet Archive says it would rather talk with writers individually than talk to the NWU or other writers’ organizations. But requests by NWU members to talk to or meet with the Internet Archive have been ignored or rebuffed.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;nwu.org&amp;#x2F;nwu-denounces-cdl&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;nwu.org&amp;#x2F;nwu-denounces-cdl&amp;#x2F;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;When the requests to abandon CDL turned into demands, Kahle dug in his heels. When the inevitable lawsuits followed, and IA lost, he insisted that he was still in the right and plowed ahead with appeals.&lt;p&gt;He also opened a new front in the court of public opinion. In his blog posts and interviews with U.S. media, Kahle portrays the court cases and legal judgements as a crusade against the Internet Archive and all librarians (see &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;blog.archive.org&amp;#x2F;2023&amp;#x2F;12&amp;#x2F;15&amp;#x2F;brewster-kahle-appeal-statement&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;blog.archive.org&amp;#x2F;2023&amp;#x2F;12&amp;#x2F;15&amp;#x2F;brewster-kahle-appeal-st...&lt;/a&gt;). It&amp;#x27;s not. It&amp;#x27;s the logical outcome of one man&amp;#x27;s seemingly fanatical conviction against the law and the people who work very hard to bring new books into being.&lt;p&gt;In addition, there has been real collateral damage to the many noble aspects of the Internet Archive. Legal fees and judgements have diverted resources away from the Wayback Machine, the library of public domain works, and other IA programs that provide real value to society. I truly hope the organization can survive.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>mumblemumble</author><text>The ruling discusses this starting on page 33. The gist is that they set up a non-transformative service that is substantially equivalent to competing ebook services and CDLs, but unlike those it is not paying the customary price to publishers.&lt;p&gt;It also discusses that there is a very good reason why digital libraries don&amp;#x27;t typically get to have perpetual rights to a work at the retail (or used) price for a print book. Basically, physical books wear out with use, ebooks don&amp;#x27;t, so there&amp;#x27;s a built-in mechanism for revenue recurrence that happens with print books but not ebooks. The ruling points out that publishers originally sold ebooks to libraries at the same pricing as print books, but abandoned the practice because they discovered that it was not financially sustainable.&lt;p&gt;And that&amp;#x27;s ultimately where the harm comes in. The IA is trying to create a loophole that subverts the income stream of all the people who work on a book by offering derivative works - which are never fair use; fair use is for &lt;i&gt;transformative&lt;/i&gt; works - without paying the market&amp;#x27;s customary price for acquiring rights to create and distribute derivative works.&lt;p&gt;(As an aside, when I see authors speaking for themselves on these sorts of issues they will typically point out that editors and typesetters and cover artists and all the other folks who work on a book also deserve to get paid. It seems to only be people who are tokenizing authors for rhetorical purposes who want fixate on authors specifically and erase the value-adding contributions of &amp;quot;the publishers&amp;quot;.)</text></comment>
<story><title>The Internet Archive has lost its appeal in Hachette vs. Internet Archive</title><url>https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca2.60988/gov.uscourts.ca2.60988.306.1.pdf</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>cmiles74</author><text>How was the CDL hurting working authors? A library bought the book, paying the publisher and the author. The IA scanned the book for digital lending, this digital copy could only be checked out by one person and only when the physical book was not also checked out.&lt;p&gt;I understand the court decided this wasn&amp;#x27;t okay. That aside, how was it hurting working authors?</text></item><item><author>doublescoop</author><text>This wasn&amp;#x27;t a case of the estates of dead authors trying to hold onto rights. Working authors were actively being harmed by the activities of the IA through the CDL. Working authors were met with refusals to meet to discuss this issue.&lt;p&gt;I don&amp;#x27;t think that characterization of Kahle is unfair at all. His position was unreasonable, determined to be illegal, and damaging to people who depend on copyright to license their work.</text></item><item><author>teruakohatu</author><text>&amp;gt; In his many interviews with U.S. media, he portrays the court cases and legal judgements as a crusade against the Internet Archive and all librarians. It&amp;#x27;s not. It&amp;#x27;s the logical outcome of one man&amp;#x27;s seemingly fanatical conviction against the law and the people who work very hard to bring new books into being.&lt;p&gt;If IA had won, IA would be hailed as a cultural hero. They hit and they missed. Claiming Brewster Kahle is against &amp;quot;the people who work very hard to bring new books into being&amp;quot; is unfair. The copyright goalposts have moved so far past where they were originally, the people who work very hard can be dead for decades and their works still in copyright, and by the time they are dead for 70 years, the copyright will probably be extended again.</text></item><item><author>ilamont</author><text>This has been playing out for many years. And it&amp;#x27;s all because Brewster Kahle decided that an overly broad interpretation of the Internet Archive&amp;#x27;s mission trumped the rights of authors and publishers, and the laws of the United States.&lt;p&gt;When IA was asked to stop CDL - many times - he continued. The National Writers Union tried to open a dialogue as early as 2010 but was ignored:&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;The Internet Archive says it would rather talk with writers individually than talk to the NWU or other writers’ organizations. But requests by NWU members to talk to or meet with the Internet Archive have been ignored or rebuffed.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;nwu.org&amp;#x2F;nwu-denounces-cdl&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;nwu.org&amp;#x2F;nwu-denounces-cdl&amp;#x2F;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;When the requests to abandon CDL turned into demands, Kahle dug in his heels. When the inevitable lawsuits followed, and IA lost, he insisted that he was still in the right and plowed ahead with appeals.&lt;p&gt;He also opened a new front in the court of public opinion. In his blog posts and interviews with U.S. media, Kahle portrays the court cases and legal judgements as a crusade against the Internet Archive and all librarians (see &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;blog.archive.org&amp;#x2F;2023&amp;#x2F;12&amp;#x2F;15&amp;#x2F;brewster-kahle-appeal-statement&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;blog.archive.org&amp;#x2F;2023&amp;#x2F;12&amp;#x2F;15&amp;#x2F;brewster-kahle-appeal-st...&lt;/a&gt;). It&amp;#x27;s not. It&amp;#x27;s the logical outcome of one man&amp;#x27;s seemingly fanatical conviction against the law and the people who work very hard to bring new books into being.&lt;p&gt;In addition, there has been real collateral damage to the many noble aspects of the Internet Archive. Legal fees and judgements have diverted resources away from the Wayback Machine, the library of public domain works, and other IA programs that provide real value to society. I truly hope the organization can survive.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>matwood</author><text>If you read the original ruling, IA lost control of the physical book so they weren&amp;#x27;t actually doing CDL.&lt;p&gt;This is why this case was so frustrating. In order to challenge long standing thought, you need to build an airtight case. Lapses like the above and then steering users to buying used copies from BWB shows IA was not ready for a case.</text></comment>