Internet Archive lawsuit isn't as bad as previously reported

[spartaman64]

Quote

The lawsuit asks the court for two main things: damages for publishers’ copyrighted works, and both a preliminary and permanent injunction of the IA’s digitization and lending processes. That all sounds dire for the Internet Archive’s future. But there seems to be lots of confusion about what the lawsuit’s actual impact on the organization and its various projects will be — and it’s not as bad as previous media reports have indicated.

Quote

When news of the lawsuit first broke, much of the reporting surrounding it was hyperbolic and alarmist. “A win for the publishers could easily bankrupt the Internet Archive,” reported Ars Technica. “The [suit] puts one of the internet’s largest repositories of knowledge in peril,” reported Vice, which also noted that supporters of the IA’s various preservation projects were already rushing to try to create backups of the entire archive.

All of this would reasonably give the impression that the publishers’ lawsuit seeks to permanently halt the entire Internet Archive and all of its projects, even the ones that have nothing to do with its book-lending program. What’s more, most of the early reporting about the lawsuit incorrectly claimed that plaintiffs were seeking damages for millions of books in the IA’s giant vault. “If the court finds that Internet Archive ”willfully” infringed copyright,” tech site Decrypt claimed, “the library could be on the hook for up to $150,000 in damages—per each of the 1.4 million titles. (You do the math.)”

Quote

But there’s a big problem with all of this — none of it is true.

What is true is that the lawsuit asks for a court injunction against the Internet Archive — but it only asks for a halt to the practice of copying books for loan in the Open Library itself, not the entire IA. And while the IA’s supporters might decry the demise of the library itself — after all, a permanent injunction against digitizing works under copyright would decimate the library, though public domain books would remain available — the lawsuit takes pains to clarify that the publishers aren’t trying to shut down the rest of the Internet Archive.

“Internet Archive provides a number of services not at issue in this action, including its Wayback Machine and digitization of public domain materials,” reads the suit’s complaint.

Quote

Then there’s the concern that the lawsuit asks for potentially debilitating financial damages from the archive. If it were true that the publishers claimed $150,000 for each of the millions of books digitized, that could certainly paralyze the entire nonprofit organization.

But in fact, the lawsuit seeks financial damages only for the sharing of 127 books under copyright, including titles like Gone Girl, A Dance with Dragons, and The Catcher in the Rye. If the court awards the plaintiffs the maximum amount provided under the law, the most the Internet Archive would have to pay would be $19 million — essentially equivalent to one year of operating revenue, according to IA tax documents. That’s a huge setback, but for the IA, a tech nonprofit that relies heavily on grants and public donations, it’s not the major death blow it might seem to be.

source: https://www.vox.com/2020/6/23/21293875/internet-archive-website-lawsuit-open-library-wayback-machine-controversy-copyright

 

While it still sucks that they might no longer be able to lend out books 1:1 to books they own anymore it appears that most of the IA is not under attack from this lawsuit and the damages they are suing for is much less than previously reported. Though it is funny that one of the books listed is catcher in the rye as if you read that book you will likely know what the protagonist might think of this lawsuit.

[Bombastinator]

I thought this one was more or less over because the IA stopped doing it some time ago as soon as there was a complaint. Seems not?

[SpikeSpiegel]

I had issues with IA a few years ago.  I demanded them to delete some photos and the admin who handle the IT department kept ignoring my emails until I kept calling them by phone.  And they manage to delete the photos I was about to file a DMCA.

[imreloadin]

Sensationalist reporting? WWWWWHHHHHAAAAAAATTTTTTTTTT?!?!?!

[SpikeSpiegel]

8 hours ago, imreloadin said:

Sensationalist reporting? WWWWWHHHHHAAAAAAATTTTTTTTTT?!?!?!

It was some personal photos of mine that were photoshopped and that person was trying to doxx me.  I had to file a police report and send it via email and they kept ignoring the emails I sent for 3 months,  Then I had enough of it and contacted them by phone.  My lawyer was about to send them a DMCA letter.

[spartaman64]

2 hours ago, CalintzJerevinan said:

It was some personal photos of mine that were photoshopped and that person was trying to doxx me.  I had to file a police report and send it via email and they kept ignoring the emails I sent for 3 months,  Then I had enough of it and contacted them by phone.  My lawyer was about to send them a DMCA letter.

thats a yikers

[SpikeSpiegel]

Just now, spartaman64 said:

thats a yikers

Yeah I even went on the IA forums to get some support help.  And they refuse to answer my thread.  I was about to just file an DMCA.  Because the harassment was getting out of hand.  And IA staff members kept ignoring my emails and forums thread.

[Soppro]

Isn't it funny this thread gets 1/10th of the replies and 1/4 of the views the other thread got, perfect example of how powerful sensationalism is

[LAwLz]

On 6/25/2020 at 6:14 PM, CalintzJerevinan said:

Yeah I even went on the IA forums to get some support help.  And they refuse to answer my thread.  I was about to just file an DMCA.  Because the harassment was getting out of hand.  And IA staff members kept ignoring my emails and forums thread.

It's a shame that things like that happens but in reality there isn't much we can do about it. Filing a dmca takedown request would have been the proper way of handling things, and would have been far quicker. 

 

I don't think IA willfully ignored your emails. I think they are overwhelmed by emails and just didn't have the time or manpower necessary to act on it. Besides, you also have to think about the necessary duediligence that needs to be done before taking something down. They have to verify that you are actually the copyright holder, than you are the person you claim to be, and things like that. Otherwise anyone can lie and take anything down. 

[SpikeSpiegel]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

It's a shame that things like that happens but in reality there isn't much we can do about it. Filing a dmca takedown request would have been the proper way of handling things, and would have been far quicker. 

 

I don't think IA willfully ignored your emails. I think they are overwhelmed by emails and just didn't have the time or manpower necessary to act on it. Besides, you also have to think about the necessary duediligence that needs to be done before taking something down. They have to verify that you are actually the copyright holder, than you are the person you claim to be, and things like that. Otherwise anyone can lie and take anything down. 

The IT manager had a death in the family and they couldn't get someone to reply back to my emails.  Also IA doesn't like outlook email accounts.  And they told me via the last email that my email were sent to their spam folder.  So maybe that's why my email's weren't getting replied back.

 

As for the DMCA I sent them my original photos and a photo ID to prove I'm the person.  I also sent a police report as well.