Submitted by OutlandishnessOk2452 t3_11wnjms in technology
ThreeToMidnight t1_jcz6db0 wrote
While I think preserving knowledge is a noble goal I cannot possibly see how the Internet Archive can win this one. They are not simply scanning books for preservation but
> As physical libraries closed their doors in the first months of the coronavirus pandemic, the Internet Archive launched what it called the National Emergency Library, removing the “own-to-loan” restriction and letting unlimited numbers of people access each ebook
previously they were lending 1 digital copy for each physical copy they owned creating a gray area of book lending. But unlimited lending without having rented or owning the physical copies is piracy.
On top of that they actually profit from ads on the site, so the publishers are also using those profits to strengthen their case.
blobdylan t1_jcz8k4w wrote
What ads are on the site? They don’t accept advertising.
ThreeToMidnight t1_jcz8x2p wrote
Among other things, publishers argue that the organization is a commercial operation that’s received affiliate link revenue and has received money for digitizing library books. In a response, the Internet Archive says it’s received around $5,500 total in affiliate revenue
blobdylan t1_jczah4x wrote
So they don’t profit from ads on the site then, because there aren’t any.
Here’s the last part of your quoted source, it seems to have been left off:
“and that its digital scanning service is separate from the Open Library.”
In case anyone wants to read the response, you can see it here: Internet Archive response
ThreeToMidnight t1_jdwrrwl wrote
blobdylan t1_jdxdbs9 wrote
Okay, but that doesn't really apply to my point. My issue was with your statement that, "On top of that they actually profit from ads on the site, so the publishers are also using those profits to strengthen their case."
There are no ads on the Internet Archive. That's it, my whole point, nothing else. If you still don't believe me, go to the Internet Archive and look around. I'm not looking to argue about it.
SomethingMatter t1_jcz8ds3 wrote
That was only for a temporary time and only included a subset of books. This was to help out the schools during early Covid. I am not sure that it was the smartest move but I can understand why they did it.
From https://blog.archive.org/national-emergency-library/
> The National Emergency Library was a temporary collection of books that supported emergency remote teaching, research activities, independent scholarship, and intellectual stimulation while universities, schools, training centers, and libraries were closed due to COVID-19. The National Emergency Library launched on March 24, 2020, and closed on June 16, 2020
[deleted] t1_jd0wjox wrote
The thing is whether it was a good idea motivated by altruism or not is really irrelevant as to whether it's legal or not. There's a reason why entities that did similar things were historically very careful to keep things on a 1:1 ratio with a physical copy.
SomethingMatter t1_jd22zum wrote
I agree that it could come back to bite them which is why I said that I didn't think it was the smartest move. I didn't see the publishers bringing it up in the oral arguments today so hopefully it won't hurt them.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments