It’s a win for book publishers who just successfully managed to sue the Internet Archive for giving free digital book scans online. To be more specific, the lawsuit was aimed at the Open Libraries Project that robbed people of their creative work.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the appeal made by the Internet Archive (IA) which is in charge of all digital book loans. This allowed a single person to borrow scanned e-books at a given time which it felt was fair behavior. The IA argued that such acts did not go against any copyright laws and functioned like classic libraries.
As mentioned by Judge Robinson, digital book copies didn’t provide any criticism or comments on the matter linked to the original owners. They were outlined to serve a similar purpose as the original book and didn’t add anything new either.
Meanwhile, the appeals court affirmed the ruling made by the lower court which banned the IA from distributing the digital copies but all books that were up for electronic licensing.
The Head of the American Association for Publishers mentioned that this trade organization’s case was fair and that is why the verdict is a clear win or victory for them. The court upheld authors and publishers’ rights and it’s great to see creative and intellectual property safe and away from any infringements.
The court says it correctly rejected the IA’s stance on the matter that it was not involved in mass copyright violation. In fact, many judges feel this will always serve as a warning or reminder to the world about future infringements.
The director for IA’s library services also rolled out a statement on this front after losing out on the appeal. They feel they have been fighting for years to ensure their Open Libraries Project remains in use so the masses can benefit.
As a whole, they expressed disbelief and disappointment over the decision including book loans present elsewhere. They will continue to review the opinions of the court and defend the rights under the ownership of libraries.
As per the judge’s ruling, the Internet Archive’s lending behavior was harming publishers. They were making a lot of profits from e-book loans and also it was hard to determine if every work was even an original or not and how much was getting copied.
In defense, the IA says book publishers’ high profits should also be considered but the judge failed to listen. They continued to side with publishers as entire books were being given to people for free in the name of e-copies. It’s just an alternative to the actual books in the market and that’s not fair.
Still, the court sided with publishers even though they didn’t provide any proof related to harm being done to the market. They felt it was just common sense and that was enough to deprive authors of revenue that solely belonged to them.
Image: DIW-Aigen
Read next: Pressure From EU Forces X To Abort Training AI Chatbot Grok With User Data
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the appeal made by the Internet Archive (IA) which is in charge of all digital book loans. This allowed a single person to borrow scanned e-books at a given time which it felt was fair behavior. The IA argued that such acts did not go against any copyright laws and functioned like classic libraries.
As mentioned by Judge Robinson, digital book copies didn’t provide any criticism or comments on the matter linked to the original owners. They were outlined to serve a similar purpose as the original book and didn’t add anything new either.
Meanwhile, the appeals court affirmed the ruling made by the lower court which banned the IA from distributing the digital copies but all books that were up for electronic licensing.
The Head of the American Association for Publishers mentioned that this trade organization’s case was fair and that is why the verdict is a clear win or victory for them. The court upheld authors and publishers’ rights and it’s great to see creative and intellectual property safe and away from any infringements.
The court says it correctly rejected the IA’s stance on the matter that it was not involved in mass copyright violation. In fact, many judges feel this will always serve as a warning or reminder to the world about future infringements.
The director for IA’s library services also rolled out a statement on this front after losing out on the appeal. They feel they have been fighting for years to ensure their Open Libraries Project remains in use so the masses can benefit.
As a whole, they expressed disbelief and disappointment over the decision including book loans present elsewhere. They will continue to review the opinions of the court and defend the rights under the ownership of libraries.
As per the judge’s ruling, the Internet Archive’s lending behavior was harming publishers. They were making a lot of profits from e-book loans and also it was hard to determine if every work was even an original or not and how much was getting copied.
In defense, the IA says book publishers’ high profits should also be considered but the judge failed to listen. They continued to side with publishers as entire books were being given to people for free in the name of e-copies. It’s just an alternative to the actual books in the market and that’s not fair.
Still, the court sided with publishers even though they didn’t provide any proof related to harm being done to the market. They felt it was just common sense and that was enough to deprive authors of revenue that solely belonged to them.
Read next: Pressure From EU Forces X To Abort Training AI Chatbot Grok With User Data
