September 27th, 2024

The Internet Archive's Fight to Save Itself

The Internet Archive faces legal challenges from publishers over copyright infringement, threatening its operations and financial stability. Its future depends on the outcomes of ongoing lawsuits regarding its digital lending practices.

Read original articleLink Icon
The Internet Archive's Fight to Save Itself

The Internet Archive, a crucial digital library preserving vast amounts of web content, faces significant legal challenges that threaten its existence. Founded by Brewster Kahle, the Archive is known for its Wayback Machine, which stores billions of web pages, books, and audio recordings. However, since 2020, it has been embroiled in lawsuits from major publishers and music labels, claiming copyright infringement due to its practice of lending digitized versions of physical books and recordings. The Archive defends its actions under "fair use," but it recently lost a case against Hachette and is currently involved in a similar dispute with UMG Recordings. The potential financial repercussions of these cases could be devastating, with fines possibly reaching hundreds of millions. Despite these challenges, Kahle remains committed to the Archive's mission of preserving digital history and providing access to information. The Archive operates under a model of controlled digital lending, allowing users to borrow digitized books, which are scanned from physical copies owned by the Archive or donated by libraries. This model, while beneficial for researchers, has drawn criticism for its limitations in usability compared to traditional e-books. The future of the Internet Archive hangs in the balance as it navigates these legal hurdles while striving to maintain its role as a vital resource for historical preservation.

- The Internet Archive is facing legal battles that threaten its operations and financial stability.

- It is known for the Wayback Machine, which archives billions of web pages and other digital content.

- The Archive defends its practices under "fair use," but has lost significant legal cases recently.

- Its controlled digital lending model allows users to borrow digitized books, primarily benefiting researchers.

- The outcome of ongoing lawsuits could have existential implications for the Archive's future.

Link Icon 8 comments
By @mrbungie - 7 months
Not to make a false dichotomy out of this case but it is worrying to me how OpenAI presents itself as a crucial force for humanity's technological progress and then justifying its blatant copyright infringements when doing so (with some people believing the bs). Yet the Internet Archive, with far fewer resources, seems to do a better job of storing and eventually helping in advancing knowledge while fighting tougher copyright battles.

And unlike with OAI, I don't find myself questioning the Archive's motives every other day.

That's what hype does, I guess.

By @naming_the_user - 7 months
I'm fairly anti-copyright as it goes but does anyone else find this whole discussion bizarre?

The site hosts things like full ROM sets, PDFs of in print books, the lot. You can just whack things in a search engine and half of the time an IA page comes up with the goods.

The fact that they've survived this long is baffling to me.

By @tkgally - 7 months
I love the Internet Archive and deeply respect Brewster Kahle, but I think it is time for someone with money to fork it: with the Archive's permission, to make a copy of the Wayback Machine and its data as well as the older books and other resources that aren't vulnerable to copyright claims. The new organization should have a more robust governance structure, too, to ensure its long-term survival.

Does anybody here have a few hundred million dollars to donate to such a project?

By @ChrisArchitect - 7 months
By @westcort - 7 months
This would be a great time for a philanthropist to come forward and support the Internet Archive for what it is--a public institution.
By @lyu07282 - 7 months
Man we really would deserve it if we let these ghouls destroy the archive
By @olliej - 7 months
While I do agree that the deal with ebooks vs libraries is utter bullshit, I also feel like the IA unnecessarily burned far too much money on that.

The US courts have consistently supported copyright owners when they claim that ebooks are magically different from physical books, so it was reasonable to predict a loss: they should have started with a very small set of books that they could have afforded to lose with (so it became mostly legal costs). Instead they set themselves up for a huge civil penalty as well.

Again, I think the “ebooks are magically different from physical books” claims are nonsense, but I feel the IA self inflicted an unnecessarily high penalty in a case they were unlikely to win.