Skip to main content
The central holding of the #InternetArchive court opinion is, if you own a physical book and scan it, you infringed the author's copyright by creating an unauthorized copy—even if you never use both at the same time. (This also implies that printing an ebook = infringement.)

That's quite bad.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.537900/gov.uscourts.nysd.537900.188.0.pdf

http://blog.archive.org/2023/03/25/the-fight-continues/
Excerpt from opinion: "The crux of IA’s first factor argument is that an organization has the right under fair use to make whatever copies of its print books are necessary to facilitate digital lending of that book, so long as only one patron at a time can borrow the book for each copy that has been bought and paid for. See Oral Arg. Tr. 31:10-15. But there is no such right, which risks eviscerating the rights of authors and publishers to profit from the creation and dissemination of derivatives of their protected works. See 17 U.S.C. §§ 106(1), (2)."

The Fight Continues

Today’s lower court decision in Hachette v. Internet Archive is a blow to all libraries and the communities we serve. This decision impacts libraries across the US who rely on controlled digital lending to connect their patrons with books online.
chrisfreeland (Internet Archive Blogs)
#internetarchive
⇧