Yes, but also, the Internet Archive knowingly broke copyright law and hoped that the courts would side with them when shit hit the fan. A valiant effort, but that's not how the law works. Money talks.
I'm not saying current copyright law is good or effective, it's not, but this stunt imo was a waste of time and money.
As much as I appreciate everything the Internet Archive does for humanity in general and myself in particular, I can see why some may take umbrage at 'allowing an unlimited number of people to access the same copies of E-books'. When a library purchases a book for the purposes of lending it out that doesn't grant the library a license to make unlimited copies of the book to lend out to anyone, after all.
I also don't get why people are making a big deal out of this, the IA basically shot themselves in the foot here. It's so obvious: if you let unlimited people lend the book, the publishers are gonna throw a fit. Just stick to the 1 book, 1 loan paradigm; that's what libraries do. If you want to loan unlimited copies, get permission from the copyright holder, if they say 'no', then the answer is 'no'.
There is no «unlimited» format for the normal running of the Archive library: it is, one user per copy per chunk of time. Exactly like a library of physical books.
To quote from an article* cited by TFA:
> The Internet Archive has long offered a system called the Open Library, where users can “check out” digital scans of physical books. The library was based on a principle called controlled digital lending, where each loan corresponds to a physically purchased book held in a library — avoiding, in theory, a piracy claim. It’s a fundamentally different system from programs like OverDrive, where publishers sell limited-time licenses to ebooks on their own terms.
> However, the Internet Archive expanded its library project during the covid-19 pandemic. It launched the National Emergency Library, allowing an unlimited number of people to access the same copies of ebooks. That’s when the publishers banded together to file the lawsuit, targeting both online libraries.
Now, maybe that article is mistaken or I'm misinterpreting what it says. If the lending is indeed controlled and goes 1 loan per book, which I know it was before that NEL thing, I've got no problem with that, and it seems like the publishers also didn't. If my reading is correct the publishers only went after IA after the NEL initiative launched.
* https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/4/24235958/internet-archive-...
> If the lending is indeed controlled and goes 1 loan per book, which I know it was before that NEL thing, I've got no problem with that, and it seems like the publishers also didn't [...] the publishers only went after IA after the NEL initiative launched
It was one loan per book per time chunk (i.e., no simultaneous loan) before that "emergency" initiative, and it returned to one loan per book per time chunk afterwards. Although the publishers sued only after the "emergency" initiative started, no, the systemic side seems to have a problem, because the rulings seem to call the "I keep the physical copy and lend access to the scans temporarily" idea as illegal.
> It was one loan per book per time chunk (i.e., no simultaneous loan) before that "emergency" initiative,
Yes...
> and it returned to one loan per book per time chunk afterwards.
Okay, so they're not repeat offenders. Still doesn't make what they did right, though.
> Although the publishers sued only after the "emergency" initiative started,
Yes...
> no, the systemic side seems to have a problem, because the rulings seem to call the "I keep the physical copy and lend access to the scans temporarily" idea as illegal.
Yeah, the judiciary did seem to phrase it like that, didn't they... that's quite bad. Now, I may be mistaken, but I seem to recall that it was the Internet Archive who tried to conflate the standard controlled lending with the so-called 'emergency' measures? Now if I'm wrong that's my bad, but otherwise the IA are massive arseholes for ruining digital controlled lending for all of us.
I just don't understand the pants-on-head intellectual dwarfism displayed by the IA, lockdowns don't give you the right to say 'unlimited digital copies for all!', that's just stupid. And if they muddied the waters by trying to portray their actions as just normal digital lending and got a precedent set that makes setting up a digital library harder in the future... well, let's just call that awful.
And really, the whole saga makes the IA look terrible: 'oh, the evil publishers are trying to kill digital libraries, woe is us', no, the IA are destroying digital libraries. They broke copyright law (as unjust as it is, it's still law. If you want to protest, start with an organised march or a strike or something) and then they tried to drag the rest of us down with them. If they hadn't pulled that clown-shoes bonkers 'emergency initiative' shit we wouldn't have these terribly-worded rulings, hell, if they had just admitted their wrongdoing and settled out of court we wouldn't have those rulings.
Again, I really like a lot of what the IA does and I regularly donate to them. But in this particular case they're the bad guys and it's really hard to see anything defensible in their conduct in this case.
Libraries operate under the doctrine of first sale (i.e. they own the copy, therefore they can lend it). This has never extended to lending digital copies, nor did IA claim it did.
IA claimed instead that this fell under the doctrine of fair use because scanning transformed the work, i.e. that the digital copies were new works that didn't serve to replace the originals. This is entirely unlike how libraries operate.
Libraries lend out the physical book, they do not make a copy. It is allowed to make copies of physical book, so Internet Archive can archive books, but can't make a copy for someone else. It does not matter if also have a physical copy or lending to one person at a time. The physical book is special because not making copy and lending physical object that own.
Also, the Internet Archive did have a program during the pandemic of lending unlimited copies. That is what pissed off the publishers and got them sued.
> Libraries [...] do not make a copy
One of the purpose of libraries is to preserve copies, and they do need to make them - they just keep their own (in the past, they also copied books just to be sure). Nowadays, if they want to preserve more copies they just buy more.
> can't make a copy for someone else
That expression does not fit the idea of providing remote access to the physical copy, as if granting exclusive-per-time access to a "virtual camera", easily implemented through the scans. Which is a good idea.
> The physical book is special because not making copy and lending physical object that own
You should really rephrase that.
Name names.
Never forget.