Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday June 03 2020, @12:52PM   Printer-friendly
from the book-'em,-Danno? dept.

Publishers Sue the Internet Archive Over its Open Library, Declare it a Pirate Site

Several major publishers have filed a copyright infringement lawsuit in a New York court targeting the Internet Archive's Open Library. According to the complaint, the project is a massive and willful infringement project that amounts to little more than a regular pirate site.

Back in March, the Internet Archive responded to the coronavirus pandemic by offering a new service to help "displaced learners".

Combining scanned books from three libraries, the Archive offered unlimited borrowing of more than a million books, so that people could continue to learn while in quarantine.

While the move was welcomed by those in favor of open access to education, publishers and pro-copyright groups slammed the decision, with some describing it as an attempt to bend copyright law and others declaring the project as mass-scale piracy.

Today, major publishers Hachette Book Group, Inc., HarperCollins Publishers LLC, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., and Penguin Random House LLC went to war with the project by filing a copyright infringement lawsuit against the Internet Archive and five 'Doe' defendants in a New York court.

Complaint (PDF).

See also: Lawsuit over online book lending could bankrupt Internet Archive

Previously: Internet Archive's Open Library Now Supports Full-Text Searches for All 4+ Million Items
Internet Archive Suspends E-Book Lending "Waiting Lists" During U.S. National Emergency
Authors Fume as Online Library "Lends" Unlimited Free Books
University Libraries Offer Online "Lending" of Scanned In-Copyright Books

Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by Quicksilver on Thursday June 04 2020, @12:07PM (1 child)

    by Quicksilver (1821) on Thursday June 04 2020, @12:07PM (#1003149)

    It would have been nice if they had setup it up as a separate company and website. Separating the risk would just make sense.

    The way copyright has been changed has setup a situation where published works are actually being lost. The idea that someone can create something and coast on that and then their children can live off of it too, is just way too much. You aren't "protecting" them. You are only protecting litigious behavior and attorney's income (and Disney's slow march across media in general).

  • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday June 04 2020, @01:13PM

    by Wootery (2341) on Thursday June 04 2020, @01:13PM (#1003170)

    Strongly agree that copyright terms are way too long, but that's not exactly the question at hand.