147
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2025
147 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
40659 readers
358 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
And open themselves up to massive penalties? That would be beyond stupid.
the judgement did not require they delete the books from their archives, only that they stop lending out digital copies of books fitting specific criteria. which should be obvious because possession not copyright infringement, reproduction/distribution is.
in fact, the judgement specfically allows Internet Archive to continue to use those books "for the purpose of accessibility for 'eligible persons'"
I wouldn't think a library/archive retaining data in an offline form would incur penalties, and I feel like preserving books for the future is the opposite of stupid.
Preserving is important, sure. But if the settlement required them to delete it and they keep an offline backup and this ever gets out, the settlement is voided and it opens up a world of hurt for them.
This is not a debate about the merits of preservation but about legal repercussions for the Internet Archive.
I didn't know if it did or didn't. But since you say that's the case, that sucks and I hate the publishers even more.
I'm 95% sure the settlement with the publishers would have included a clause requiring the Internet Archive to delete all "infringing" material in their possession.
what's your methodology for that 95% figure? because Internet Archive themselves mention no such clause: