[hn_check]

They made no claims to this effect, have announced zero partnership, and instead made claims entirely contrary to this. It seems remarkably specious and apologist to imagine this as an argument now.

I don't even get why IA did this, or why they threatened the project itself with this side project. Many people gave money to the project for the internet archiving, not some sort of robinhood book distribution system. Whoever did this should have created a completely separate side project instead of effectively bankrupting the meaningful, justifiable project in the process.

[zozbot234]

> They made no claims to this effect, have announced zero partnership, and instead made claims entirely contrary to this.

It makes sense that they would do this if they were actively trying to lure the pro-copyright camp (Authors' Guild and publishers) into a difficult-to-defend and highly unpopular position. I agree that it seems a bit unrealistic, but surely the IA had to know that a lawsuit would be filed given their public claims wrt. the NEL.

[Silhouette]

It makes sense that they would do this if they were actively trying to lure the pro-copyright camp (Authors' Guild and publishers) into a difficult-to-defend and highly unpopular position.

That position being that the IA shouldn't do what the law says you aren't allowed to do? That doesn't seem very difficult to defend at all, and it's going to be unpopular with the kind of person who thinks copyright shouldn't exist but probably less so with the people who created those works if they aren't getting paid as they should be.

I'm a little wary of saying much here because copyright disputes often seem to end up having relevant details that were omitted from some reporting on them. But if the IA really is making and distributing an unlimited number of copies of a protected work, isn't that exactly the act that copyright was designed to prohibit?

[nybble41]

> That position being that the IA shouldn't do what the law says you aren't allowed to do?

But does it say that? Their status as an officially-recognized library means they're operating by different rules than most private citizens. Libraries are (sometimes) allowed to make copies of copyrighted works without asking anyone's permission. It's entirely possible that the limitations they imposed on digital lending prior to this event were merely a expression of courtesy—or excess caution—and not an actual legal obligation.

[zozbot234]

> Libraries are (sometimes) allowed to make copies of copyrighted works without asking anyone's permission.

Libraries can make copies for preservation purposes, but that's not the same thing as making those copies generally available. The latter is not something that they're permitted to do outside of special circumstances. So I think your argument is going too far - there are clear reasons why the Open Library's lending works the way it does.

[nybble41]

There are a number if different (if somewhat overlapping) copyright exceptions for libraries. Some do allow copies to be made generally available to the public, though none are intended to mass distribution of any one work.

Section 108(a) allows the library to make a single copy of a work and distribute it to the public.

Section 108(b) allows up to three copies, for preservation or security or for deposit in another library (but not distributed directly to the public).

Section 108(c) allows up to three copies to replace deteriorating or obsolete media, but does not allow distribution outside the premises.

Section 108(d) applies only to excerpts.

Section 108(e) allows apparently unlimited copies to be made for "private study, scholarship, or research"—this is the default assumption, so the library would need to know that this was not the case to be in violation—provided that the work "cannot be obtained at a fair price". However, the copy must become the property of the user (i.e. not a loan).

Section 108(h) allows more widespread copying and distribution of abandonware within the last 20 years of their copyright period.

Ironically, section 108(e) would probably offer the best protection, but only if they were actually handing out permanent copies and not limited-time loans.

[ghaff]

In the US, as far as I can tell, there's no such thing as an officially-recognized library--at least at the federal level unless you're talking about the Library of Congress.

The IA is a 501(c)(3) organization but they're not a "library" in that filing (which may not even be a specific option).

Classification (NTEE) Human Service Organizations - Multipurpose (Human Services — Multipurpose and Other)

Nonprofit Tax Code Designation: 501(c)(3) Defined as: Organizations for any of the following purposes: religious, educational, charitable, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition (as long as it doesn’t provide athletic facilities or equipment), or the prevention of cruelty to children or animals.

But, sure, they look like a library so they're free to call themselves one. But that doesn't actually confer a lot of special privileges.

[nybble41]

17 U.S. Code § 108[1] grants copyright exceptions specifically to "libraries or archives". This is completely separate from their status as a 501(c)(3) non-profit origanization for tax purposes.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/108

[Silhouette]

Yes, it does say that. Libraries generally don't allow people to make copies of complete works, and for good reason. Copyright laws often have special provisions for specific purposes like archival, but that isn't what's being described here.