The Internet Archive's last-ditch effort to save itself(lunduke.locals.com)
lunduke.locals.com
The Internet Archive's last-ditch effort to save itself
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/5556650/the-internet-archives-last-ditch-effort-to-save-itself
403 comments
The "National Emergency Library" was obviously a huge mistake, and I'm surprised that IA continues to defend it. The problem is, their online book lending is far from the most important part of the Internet Archive, and by continuing to fight for it, they risk losing everything, including the entire rest of the archive which seems to me to be far more important.
The Internet Archive has become the de-facto default location to upload anything rare, important, or valuable, and a terrifyingly large amount of history would suddenly blink from existence if it were brought down.
The Internet Archive has become the de-facto default location to upload anything rare, important, or valuable, and a terrifyingly large amount of history would suddenly blink from existence if it were brought down.
"last-ditch effort to save itself" is the title, "things aren't looking good for the Internet's archivist" the subtitle. But no mention of what losing the lawsuit actually means for IA: is it actually existential as the title and subtitle are alluding to? That's the only thing I care about if we assume (1) the IA is important and (2) they're gonna lose, both of which I think virtually everyone thinks are realistic statements. Bit disappointed by the article because it's rehashing what we know
Edit: found the answer
> per Wikipedia, as of eight months ago (August 2023), the lawsuit parties already reached & had the court approve a negotiated settlement that caps the potential costs to the IA at a survivable level
^from another comment, <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40203627>, nearly at the very bottom of the thread (perhaps because it looks like a wall of text at first glance? But the most important info is first). Thanks, gojomo!
I just hope this appeal cannot make it worse than it is. Sounds like it will soon again be a good time to donate to the IA: they survive, plaintiffs see there is nothing more to take, then we fund their regular operations and hope for no more "emergency" ideas
Edit: found the answer
> per Wikipedia, as of eight months ago (August 2023), the lawsuit parties already reached & had the court approve a negotiated settlement that caps the potential costs to the IA at a survivable level
^from another comment, <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40203627>, nearly at the very bottom of the thread (perhaps because it looks like a wall of text at first glance? But the most important info is first). Thanks, gojomo!
I just hope this appeal cannot make it worse than it is. Sounds like it will soon again be a good time to donate to the IA: they survive, plaintiffs see there is nothing more to take, then we fund their regular operations and hope for no more "emergency" ideas
Regardless of the legal merits of the Internet Archive's case, and regardless of Hachette Book Group's insistence otherwise, it's clear from Hachette's arguments and public statements that they would be happiest if public libraries altogether didn't exist and fair use was erased from law.
And regardless of what the law is, the Internet Archive an other libraries should be allowed to lend out a digitized copy of a physical book they own while the physical book is not in use (i.e. controlled digital lending). This is especially true for books without an official digital edition. Hachette doesn't want this, because they want to extract as much revenue from libraries as possible through continuing subscription fees for digital catalogs.
Finally, while I agree that the Internet Archive's arguments that the National Emergency Library's unlimited lending should be fair use were always tenuous, I'm still saddened that the arguments failed, and think the precedent their failure sets is much worse for society than the precedent from their success would have been.
And regardless of what the law is, the Internet Archive an other libraries should be allowed to lend out a digitized copy of a physical book they own while the physical book is not in use (i.e. controlled digital lending). This is especially true for books without an official digital edition. Hachette doesn't want this, because they want to extract as much revenue from libraries as possible through continuing subscription fees for digital catalogs.
Finally, while I agree that the Internet Archive's arguments that the National Emergency Library's unlimited lending should be fair use were always tenuous, I'm still saddened that the arguments failed, and think the precedent their failure sets is much worse for society than the precedent from their success would have been.
"At bottom, [the Internet Archive’s] fair use defense rests on the notion that lawfully acquiring a copyrighted print book entitles the recipient to make an unauthorized copy and distribute it in place of the print book, so long as it does not simultaneously lend the print book. But no case or legal principle supports that notion. Every authority points the other direction."
First of all, why isn't that supported? Why shouldn't they be allowed to distribute that book digitally at a 1:1 ratio?
Secondly, isn't this part of what their case is arguing for though? Wouldn't this be the case that sets that precedent?
First of all, why isn't that supported? Why shouldn't they be allowed to distribute that book digitally at a 1:1 ratio?
Secondly, isn't this part of what their case is arguing for though? Wouldn't this be the case that sets that precedent?
> Maybe you and I are on the side of The Internet Archive. Maybe we are such big fans of Archive.org that we want to come to their defense.
> But feelings don't matter here. Only facts. And the facts are simple. The Archive's actions and statements (and questionable legal defense) have all but ensured a loss in this case.
This is what has surprised me about people's defense of IA. When you look at the facts and ignore the admittedly good work they do elsewhere, it's clear that they not only ran afoul of the law but thumbed their noses at it. But so many people are quick to come to its defense because they love IA so much for the other stuff they do and don't want it to go away.
> But feelings don't matter here. Only facts. And the facts are simple. The Archive's actions and statements (and questionable legal defense) have all but ensured a loss in this case.
This is what has surprised me about people's defense of IA. When you look at the facts and ignore the admittedly good work they do elsewhere, it's clear that they not only ran afoul of the law but thumbed their noses at it. But so many people are quick to come to its defense because they love IA so much for the other stuff they do and don't want it to go away.
I wanted to write a piece of FOSS that would allow dissemination of a large dataset. It would basically work kind of like a torrent swarm, you'd have a "tracker" (the Internet Archive) deciding what it wants each person to store (usually the rarest content would get stored preferentially), and the user could say "I want to donate 2 TB of space to the Internet Archive" and would download whatever files the IA thought were most at risk of being lost.
This would have the added benefit that, if the IA went down, the public could reconstruct (some of) the dataset from this swarm.
I spoke to a few archiving organizations about whether they'd find it useful, but there wasn't much interest. Too bad, I think a lot of people would like to donate some disk space right about now.
This would have the added benefit that, if the IA went down, the public could reconstruct (some of) the dataset from this swarm.
I spoke to a few archiving organizations about whether they'd find it useful, but there wasn't much interest. Too bad, I think a lot of people would like to donate some disk space right about now.
Hopefully in the far future the IA will be distributed over many individual user nodes, but that doesn't seem feasible right now. What we need right now are 2-4 high powered individuals or companies building local mirrors. Hopefully the IA would cooperate in setting these up. These mirror organizations should be distributed around the globe in different jurisdictions, and they need to take the negative lessons from IA into account: for example, they should probably be structured such that the legally precarious data-serving arm is a different entity from the organization that owns the server space.
We absolutely need this kind of resilience, and we need it now. Otherwise this time will retroactively be dubbed the digital dark ages because so very little information actually survived and made it out.
Someone in this thread was estimating about USD 2M investment in hardware, then 1M facilities and a small team of people for initial setup, plus connectivity costs and maintenance - let's say 4M initially and about 1M ongoing costs yearly. A single wealthy individual could fund one of these sites. You don't even have to be "rich" to fund this, being well off would be enough.
If you fit this description and you're feeling altruistic or are looking for a lasting legacy that will benefit humanity far into the future, use a portion of your capital to make this happen.
We absolutely need this kind of resilience, and we need it now. Otherwise this time will retroactively be dubbed the digital dark ages because so very little information actually survived and made it out.
Someone in this thread was estimating about USD 2M investment in hardware, then 1M facilities and a small team of people for initial setup, plus connectivity costs and maintenance - let's say 4M initially and about 1M ongoing costs yearly. A single wealthy individual could fund one of these sites. You don't even have to be "rich" to fund this, being well off would be enough.
If you fit this description and you're feeling altruistic or are looking for a lasting legacy that will benefit humanity far into the future, use a portion of your capital to make this happen.
There's a lot of sentiment here uncritically equating "right" to "the law". Yes, they almost certainly will not win because it seems (at least to a layperson like me) that they've broken the law. However, that doesn't mean the law is right.
What are the worst consequences of losing the appeal? Could this put the Internet Archive out of business or seriously impact its ability to operate?
Should I assume that this latest tilt at a windmill is going to cause IA to get decapitated by a blade, and start preparing for a world without the Wayback Machine and the other legally non-controversial bits of IA?
Is it too late for them to turn back from this craziness and settle out of court for a non-fatal amount?
Is it too late for them to turn back from this craziness and settle out of court for a non-fatal amount?
If this makes the IA website go down, we are going to lose so much important internet history. For example, Garry’s Mod recently had almost all of its Nintendo addons taken down, and they were republished on the IA. So if we lose the IA, we might honestly lose quite a lot of preserved media, between games, videos, audio, and everything else.
I love IA but honestly they're almost not a library anymore. You can find entire ROMsets for a lot of consoles for games that are still being commercially sold both physically and digitally, you can download without any kinds of restrictions (no attempts at controlled digital lending or anything like it), and without having to see a bunch of ads for "Horny and Single MILFS in your area".
You can also download full TV series that are currently still available on Netflix and full movies and lots of other stuff. I'm all for archiving, and I think they'd have a case if this were Abandonware or Lost Media, but I fear that a lot of stuff on there simply isn't and their ambivalence towards flagrant abuses of copyright is going to get them repeatedly sued.
It's annoying, because IA is a wonderful resource and it would be a shame if they get sued out of existence.
You can also download full TV series that are currently still available on Netflix and full movies and lots of other stuff. I'm all for archiving, and I think they'd have a case if this were Abandonware or Lost Media, but I fear that a lot of stuff on there simply isn't and their ambivalence towards flagrant abuses of copyright is going to get them repeatedly sued.
It's annoying, because IA is a wonderful resource and it would be a shame if they get sued out of existence.
Those who destroy The Internet Archive must live in our memories.
From the headline to the details, this is a deeply misinformed take on the arguments, current case status, & possible outcomes.
"Save itself"?
Despite occasional prior histrionic kayfabe about "IA in existential danger" in the media (& HN threads) – sometimes fanned by the IA's supporters themselves – that's never been the real stakes.
For the serious librarians, publishing businesspeople, and lawyers involved, this has been about legal clarity for a gray area at the intersection of copyright, fair use, & traditional rights of first-sale and library practices. It's not really about damages, nor the IA's (or traditional publishers') existence. Instead: the principles controlling what's allowable going forward.
To that end, per Wikipedia, as of eight months ago (August 2023), the lawsuit parties already reached & had the court approve a negotiated settlement that caps the potential costs to the IA at a survivable level, & sets ground rules for future similar e-book activities that the Hachette et al (4 major publishers) plaintiffs and AAP (publishers' trade group) find acceptable. But further: this mutual settlement permits IA to continue its legal appeal on the principles involved.
From <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hachette_v._Internet_Archive#F...>:
> On August 11, 2023, the parties reached a negotiated judgment. The agreement prescribes a permanent injunction against the Internet Archive preventing it from distributing the plaintiffs' books, except those for which no e-book is currently available,[3] as well as an undisclosed payment to the plaintiffs.[25][26] The agreement also preserves the right for the Internet Archive to appeal the previous ruling.[25][26]
That is: the publishers were never b-movie villains trying to destroy a public resource; the IA was never reckless anarchists gambling all its other programs for a quixotic legal precedent. They were all adults with a legitimate legal dispute about what's allowed, seeking a clear definitive resolution in the culturally-appropriate manner.
And via the settlement and appeal, the parties are still working out the issues.
This author misdescribes the IA as "a profitable enterprise (bringing in between $20 and $30 million per year) that is on the verge of a potentially devastating legal ruling which could put [it] out of business". But IA is a non-profit, arguing for a mission-critical principle – a principle which is a plausible extrapolation of existing fair-use rights and library/IA practices into a new domain. And it's doing so with explicit permission under the existing settlement, capping financial risks far below any existential risk.
This author further deceptively excerpts IA's central argument as being just "Controlled digital lending is not equivalent to posting an ebook online for anyone to read". Against this, the author writes, essentially, "nuh-uh, that's exactly what they did".
In fact the full necessary context of IA's argument is:
> First, Publishers disregard the key feature of controlled digital lending: the controls that ensure borrowing a book digitally adheres to the same owned-to-loaned ratio inherent in borrowing a book physically. Publishers repeatedly compare IA’s lending to inapposite practices that lack this key feature. Controlled digital lending is not equivalent to posting an ebook online for anyone to read or copy (contra Resp.Br. 27) or to peer-to-peer file-sharing by companies like Napster (contra Resp.Br. 5). Neither practice is based on use of a library’s lawfully acquired physical copy, and neither ensures that only the one person entitled to borrow the book (or recording) can access it at a time. Controlled digital lending is also distinct from the digital resale considered in Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi, Inc., 910 F.3d 649 (2d Cir. 2018). Contra Resp.Br. 35. The former’s purpose is nonprofit library lending, while the latter’s was commercial resale. Controlled digital lending is fair use, even if these other practices are not.
That is: the heart of IA argument is that its "controlled digital lending" practices were technologically limited in purpose and duration to be like libraries' other traditional legal reuses of owned works. (Typically, this meant maintaining the 1:1 physical-copy-to-leant-ebook ratio, but even under the temporary "National Emergency Library" program, it meant no permanent unrestricted copies were created – all rights-managed borrowings could and did expire when the crisis ended and normal book sources reopened.)
This author's manipulative clipping distorts the IA's filing into a strawman not matching the actual arguments advanced.
"Save itself"?
Despite occasional prior histrionic kayfabe about "IA in existential danger" in the media (& HN threads) – sometimes fanned by the IA's supporters themselves – that's never been the real stakes.
For the serious librarians, publishing businesspeople, and lawyers involved, this has been about legal clarity for a gray area at the intersection of copyright, fair use, & traditional rights of first-sale and library practices. It's not really about damages, nor the IA's (or traditional publishers') existence. Instead: the principles controlling what's allowable going forward.
To that end, per Wikipedia, as of eight months ago (August 2023), the lawsuit parties already reached & had the court approve a negotiated settlement that caps the potential costs to the IA at a survivable level, & sets ground rules for future similar e-book activities that the Hachette et al (4 major publishers) plaintiffs and AAP (publishers' trade group) find acceptable. But further: this mutual settlement permits IA to continue its legal appeal on the principles involved.
From <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hachette_v._Internet_Archive#F...>:
> On August 11, 2023, the parties reached a negotiated judgment. The agreement prescribes a permanent injunction against the Internet Archive preventing it from distributing the plaintiffs' books, except those for which no e-book is currently available,[3] as well as an undisclosed payment to the plaintiffs.[25][26] The agreement also preserves the right for the Internet Archive to appeal the previous ruling.[25][26]
That is: the publishers were never b-movie villains trying to destroy a public resource; the IA was never reckless anarchists gambling all its other programs for a quixotic legal precedent. They were all adults with a legitimate legal dispute about what's allowed, seeking a clear definitive resolution in the culturally-appropriate manner.
And via the settlement and appeal, the parties are still working out the issues.
This author misdescribes the IA as "a profitable enterprise (bringing in between $20 and $30 million per year) that is on the verge of a potentially devastating legal ruling which could put [it] out of business". But IA is a non-profit, arguing for a mission-critical principle – a principle which is a plausible extrapolation of existing fair-use rights and library/IA practices into a new domain. And it's doing so with explicit permission under the existing settlement, capping financial risks far below any existential risk.
This author further deceptively excerpts IA's central argument as being just "Controlled digital lending is not equivalent to posting an ebook online for anyone to read". Against this, the author writes, essentially, "nuh-uh, that's exactly what they did".
In fact the full necessary context of IA's argument is:
> First, Publishers disregard the key feature of controlled digital lending: the controls that ensure borrowing a book digitally adheres to the same owned-to-loaned ratio inherent in borrowing a book physically. Publishers repeatedly compare IA’s lending to inapposite practices that lack this key feature. Controlled digital lending is not equivalent to posting an ebook online for anyone to read or copy (contra Resp.Br. 27) or to peer-to-peer file-sharing by companies like Napster (contra Resp.Br. 5). Neither practice is based on use of a library’s lawfully acquired physical copy, and neither ensures that only the one person entitled to borrow the book (or recording) can access it at a time. Controlled digital lending is also distinct from the digital resale considered in Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi, Inc., 910 F.3d 649 (2d Cir. 2018). Contra Resp.Br. 35. The former’s purpose is nonprofit library lending, while the latter’s was commercial resale. Controlled digital lending is fair use, even if these other practices are not.
That is: the heart of IA argument is that its "controlled digital lending" practices were technologically limited in purpose and duration to be like libraries' other traditional legal reuses of owned works. (Typically, this meant maintaining the 1:1 physical-copy-to-leant-ebook ratio, but even under the temporary "National Emergency Library" program, it meant no permanent unrestricted copies were created – all rights-managed borrowings could and did expire when the crisis ended and normal book sources reopened.)
This author's manipulative clipping distorts the IA's filing into a strawman not matching the actual arguments advanced.
The discussion here makes for tawdry reading I must say. If the relatively technologically capable are apparently predominantly convinced now that copying a file is the same as stealing a physical good then the Internet Archive is already in bad shape.
Maybe instead of paying lawyers to enforce copyright these corps should pay the authors more.
Its so frustrating that copyright claims provide riches to the middlemen while buyers/consumers and authors/artists get screwed over again and again.
Its so frustrating that copyright claims provide riches to the middlemen while buyers/consumers and authors/artists get screwed over again and again.
It's surprising to me the internet archive isn't raking in the money selling AI training data. There are so many quality resources that aren't available on the internet anymore and aren't discoverable.
There is another story on the HN front page about the FCC fining wireless carriers for sharing location data. Someone left a comment comparing the fine for each carrier to their yearly revenue. The biggest fine was for only 0.1% of the carrier's yearly revenue.
What the Internet Archive did was obviously illegal, no matter how well intentioned, and I'm disappointed in how they've handled the situation. But what those carriers did is arguably much worse in regards to the public good. So why is the IA looking at its potential end while those carriers receive wrist slaps?
What the Internet Archive did was obviously illegal, no matter how well intentioned, and I'm disappointed in how they've handled the situation. But what those carriers did is arguably much worse in regards to the public good. So why is the IA looking at its potential end while those carriers receive wrist slaps?
As a regular user of this wonderful archive.org project, I found it a pitty that no agreement could be found with editors such as Hachette regarding old books.
Without archive.org, it seems no money at all was made from them. A subscription to access these old books would be a win-win, with a part redistributed to editors. Access could be made from archive.org or why not, directed to a frame in editor websites.
Same for old magazines which are really appreciated by the retrocomputing community.
Without archive.org, it seems no money at all was made from them. A subscription to access these old books would be a win-win, with a part redistributed to editors. Access could be made from archive.org or why not, directed to a frame in editor websites.
Same for old magazines which are really appreciated by the retrocomputing community.
A certain group of people don't like to keep memories, at least inconvenient memories to them.
Check who's been fighting the Internet Archive for several years and you'll understand who this people are.
This is an aspect of the internet archive that I don't use at all. It is disturbing to me that we could lose the actual internet archive, by which I mean the snapshotted history of the public internet over this. These two aspects of the organization seem separable. But I guess there are other organizations that are also snapshotting so maybe it isn't a huge deal anyway?
If younger generations were given the ability to rewrite the laws around sharing works, I feel like none of this would be in question.
> Because of Brazilian government demands to remove creators from our platform, Locals is currently unavailable in Brazil
> We are challenging these government demands and hope to restore access soon
https://archive.is/h7NDp
An internet without archival sites is a censored internet. How fitting.
> We are challenging these government demands and hope to restore access soon
https://archive.is/h7NDp
An internet without archival sites is a censored internet. How fitting.
I hope we don't torch Internet Archive. It might even cause irrevocable loss of information and knowledge.
Reminds me of destruction of the Library of Alexandria.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria
Reminds me of destruction of the Library of Alexandria.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria
Can't read the article because blocked in my country (Brazil) for some reason (legal demands) ;-(
The author seems to be paid to write this, and other articles, he's probably on the payroll of a 3 letter agency.
A bit obvious that hosting this sort of service in the U.S would have bad consequences.
Try Linkwarden - https://linkwarden.app
- Preserve bookmarks by capturing a screenshot of the saved page.
- Open-source and fully self-hostable.
- Support for collaborative bookmarking.
P.S. I’m the maintainer of the project.
- Preserve bookmarks by capturing a screenshot of the saved page.
- Open-source and fully self-hostable.
- Support for collaborative bookmarking.
P.S. I’m the maintainer of the project.
I recently read an article (can't find it, but similar to this: https://blog.reedsy.com/how-much-do-authors-make/) which pointed out that the publishing industry is very similar to Venture Capital where 1 hit pays for a ton of the other books that sell at most 1000s of copies.
So, if you make books available for free, with unlimited copies, the publisher never gets their advance back, never funds the next hit, etc, etc, etc.
I'm all for freedom for information, but unless we can come up with a distribution model that ensures authors actually get paid... I've gotta side with the publishers here. They gotta pay the authors somehow.
So, if you make books available for free, with unlimited copies, the publisher never gets their advance back, never funds the next hit, etc, etc, etc.
I'm all for freedom for information, but unless we can come up with a distribution model that ensures authors actually get paid... I've gotta side with the publishers here. They gotta pay the authors somehow.
IA may have gone beyond pushing the envelope and well into stepping over the line on this one, but it is an important legal challenge. I don't think IA will or should win, but I do hope that their loss shifts the needle of public opinion a bit toward actual Fair Use.