This is misleading. IA had a restriction of one digital copy per real copy scanned, however they removed this restriction during covid - and that was when the publishers sued.

End of the day, IA tried to test the limits of them and ended up having them defined better in favour of the publishers. They paint themselves as the victim, but actually it's their actions that made things worse. Hopefully they'll straighten things out a bit in the appeal, but IA only have themselves to blame here.

[–] 68x@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

I don’t know dude. I think the publishers here are in the wrong too.

IA does a lot more than being a library and this lawsuit will probably crush them. For the big publishers, the lent files are probably a fraction of a fraction of a percentage for their business.

IA also archives a lot of data, including hard to find books, websites, trailers, etc. I don’t think anyone else will step up to replace them.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago

In the wrong how?

If you don't believe in copyright, whatever, but IA was doing something blatantly violating the law and getting away with it until they decided to flamboyantly draw attention to themselves by removing the veneer of legality and just giving away unlimited copies.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)