Internet Archive forced to remove 500k books after publishers' court win
Publishers’ successful lawsuit against the Internet Archive has forced the removal of roughly 500,000 digitized books, reigniting long‑running disputes over copyright, digital lending, and access to knowledge. Commenters split between viewing the Archive’s COVID-era “emergency library” and controlled digital lending as unlawful mass piracy that endangered the whole project, and seeing publishers as rent-seeking gatekeepers blocking non-profit libraries from preserving and sharing out‑of‑print works. Much of the debate centers on whether current copyright terms and licensing models for ebooks are socially beneficial, with many calling for shorter terms, “use it or lose it” rules for out‑of‑print books, and broader legal reforms.
Legality, COVID “Emergency Library,” and IA’s Strategy
- Many argue IA’s COVID-era “emergency library” (unlimited concurrent loans) was an obvious overreach that “poked the bear” and triggered the lawsuit.
- Others stress the lawsuit formally targeted all of IA’s controlled digital lending (CDL), not just the emergency period.
- Court granted summary judgment against IA; several commenters see this as proof their legal theory was weak and poorly executed.
- Criticism that IA leadership gambled the whole archive on an activist move instead of isolating the legal risk.
- A minority defend IA’s actions as necessary civil disobedience in a broken copyright regime.
Controlled Digital Lending vs. Copyright Law
- CDL advocates: if a library owns a physical copy, it should be allowed to lend one managed digital scan at a time (1:1 “owned-to-loaned”).
- Court held the scanning + delivery itself is “copying” requiring permission; the 1:1 constraint was deemed irrelevant.
- Some note IA’s own records under discovery showed they weren’t even perfectly enforcing 1:1.
- Analogies raised (and mostly rejected legally) to “renting DVDs and streaming them one-at-a-time” services that courts shut down.
Critiques of Copyright Duration and Scope
- Broad agreement that copyright terms are far too long (life + 70 in practice).
- Proposals: fixed 10–25 year terms; “use it or lose it”; mandatory renewal fees; automatic public domain at death; shorter terms for software.
- Strong support for freeing out-of-print / commercially unavailable works; debate over whether authors’ families should keep rights.
- Comparisons with trademarks (“use it or lose it”), patents, and copyleft licenses (GPL) as alternative incentive structures.
Publishers, Authors, and Libraries
- Many view publishers as rent-seeking gatekeepers exploiting DRM and expensive e‑book licenses that drain library budgets.
- Others push back, highlighting the value of editors, typesetters, and the need for revenue in a high-risk book market.
- Libraries’ traditional first-sale rights vs. tightly controlled digital lending seen as a core conflict; fear that “digital libraries” will be effectively illegal.
Access, Piracy, and Shadow Libraries
- Strong sentiment that restricting easily shareable knowledge is socially harmful, especially for old, niche, and technical books.
- IA’s scans are often unique mid‑20th‑century works not well covered by LibGen; removal is a real loss for researchers and students.
- Many predict users will shift to LibGen, Anna’s Archive, IPFS, and torrents; some openly encourage seeding as a form of resistance.
Normative and Political Debates
- Long subthreads on whether information should be treated like property at all; emphasis on non-rivalrous nature of digital goods.
- Arguments range from “abolish copyright” to “fix it modestly”; concerns about communism vs. capitalism, UBI, state subsidies, and long-term societal incentives.