Internet Archive Loses Appeal in Hachette v. Internet Archive lawsuit

[Cactus Chef]

https://blog.archive.org/2024/09/04/...llate-opinion/

Don't have a primary source other than IA's response, but full court decision here:
https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisio...3-1260_opn.pdf

[ownedbycats]

A good point in the comments:

In some cases, publishers have blocked books that were out-of-print but owned by previous entities swallowed up by larger publishers (Penguin Random House). Frankly, if Penguin Random House wants to control access to books published by entities it swallowed, shouldn’t it also assume the obligation to ensure that digital and/or print copies are still available to consumers? The court decision transcript cites Sandra Cisneros as an example of an author who is mad at archive.org’s inclusion of her books in the controlled digital library, but frankly she is a living author whose books are still in print and ebooks are mostly available. That is not what most archive.org users care about. We care about books published in the 1940s and 1950s and 1960s and 1970s, but which are out-of-print and the author is deceased.

There should certainly be reasonable accommodations for publishers who want to opt out, but why should Penguin Random House block books long out of print that they no longer have a genuine commercial interest in?

Thee's also an article on Wired about it.

Honestly, I feel like the National Emergency Library was the Archive shooting itself in the foot. Without that, there wouldn't have been the basis for a lawsuit.