Internet Archive Responds to Appellate Opinion in Hachette v. Internet Archive

"We are disappointed in today’s opinion about the Internet Archive’s digital lending of books that are available electronically elsewhere. We are reviewing the court’s opinion and will continue to defend the rights of libraries to own, lend, and preserve books."
-Chris Freeland, Director of Library Services

🔗 https://blog.archive.org/2024/09/04/internet-archive-responds-to-appellate-opinion/

Internet Archive Responds to Appellate Opinion in Hachette v. Internet Archive | Internet Archive Blogs

@internetarchive @pluralistic ugh. Legal nonsense like this puts me in a very Elbakyan mood.
Decentralization is the only answer.
@internetarchive thanks for all your work, so, so much
@internetarchive In a big blow to the nonprofit Internet Archive and deep bow to AI for profit, copyrighted digital media is now exclusively accessible through American paid gateways guarded by a rambling Chatty Bard and their confused Copilot Gemini.
@internetarchive 'are available electronically elsewhere'? Is there a not missing from this phrase? what is importance to me as a service from the IA is access to out-of-print, never commercially digitised books, not ones available elsewhere.
@internetarchive Apologies, now I've read the judgment I've seen that 'available electronically elsewhere' is correct and the type of books I use you for may not be affected. Sorry for jumping to conclusions.
@internetarchive Sounds to me like you’re about to lose access to real libraries. The European Union will still have them, you may even be able to borrow while you visit.

@internetarchive Obviously nobody should ever buy any book published by Hatchette again, ever. If you own a bookstore and are reading this, please round up all Hatchette titles and return them for a refund.

Bitorrent yes, Hatchette NO. Pirates are stronger than any court...

@LukefromDC @internetarchive hatchette is the new metallica

@julieofthespirits @internetarchive In terms of that, when the RIAA filesharing lawsuits were active, tens of millions stopped buying CD's in response. No copyright law can force anyone to consume content or anything else. Boycotting it completely is entirely legal.

Some say this may have been what finished off retail sale of music on physical media excluding traditional phonograph records (which still trade today). The RIAA abandoned the lawsuits, but not before the boycott permanently downsized the market for paid music.

@LukefromDC Also Penguin, HarperCollins, and Wiley, who were co-plaintiffs
@willow Fuck 'em all, let bankruptcy court sort them out. Suing people for copyright to limit distribution of books is second only to burning books. It's these assholes' money I want to burn...
In some books I am not reading (at least for a while): a boycott. Long live Internet Archive

" Boycott (verb): to engage in a concerted refusal to have dealings with (a person, a store, an organization, etc.) usually to express di...

@internetarchive Ridiculous. The idea this court decides against your favor is proof of a democracy in decline. Thank you, Internet Archive.
@internetarchive A sad day for libraries and internet user's rights, I hope the internet archive continues the good fight and gets this overturned eventually!