If you found out that 500,000 books had been removed from your local public library, at the demands of big publishers who refused to let them buy and lend new copies, and were further suing the lib…

If you found out that 500,000 books had been removed from your local public library, at the demands of big publishers who refused to let them buy and lend new copies, and were further suing the library for damages, wouldn’t you think that would be a major news story? Wouldn’t you think many people would be up in arms about it?

  • Possibly linuxEnglish
    -4•5 months ago

    They literally poked the bear. They had a copyright exception for the Wayback machine. Apparently they though it would be a good idea to put everything in danger by illegally sharing books. They say they should be exempt because they are a library but all libraries are still required to follow the law.

        • @[email protected]English
          0•5 months ago

          As we’ve discussed at great length, the Internet Archive’s Open Library system is indistinguishable from the economics of how a regular library works. The Archive either purchases physical books or has them donated (just like a physical library). It then lends them out on a one-to-one basis (leaving aside a brief moment where it took down that barrier when basically all libraries were shut down due to pandemic lockdowns), such that when someone “borrows” a digital copy of a book, no one else can borrow that same copy.

          The decision opens the door to doing the same thing to any library that offers digital copies of the books they own.

          • Possibly linuxEnglish
            1•5 months ago

            leaving aside a brief moment where it took down that barrier

            That was the problem that started this mess. They aren’t even willing to admit that was the cause. If they would have admitted wrong doing off the bat and looked to settle the book publishers may of just left them alone. The problem is they can’t see past there own nose