It doesn't seem as cut and dry as you make it seem.
Archival institutions are allowed to make digitized copies of legitimately owned works, and to allow access to that copy on their own "premises".
In the case of an organization like the internet archive which does not have physical premises, would you accept the argument that their 'premises' is the internet?
The question that they want answered is: where exactly is the line between looking at a scanned/microfiched/non-original archival copy of copyrighted material at the library, and viewing that same material over a network connection.
They weren't just handing out unlimited copies of books. They were distributing owned copies of books for exclusive temporary use. The method of delivery is different, but the end result is the same as checking a book out and leaving the library.
Just because public libraries signed shitty deals to get access to lending ebook licenses doesn't mean that the right to lend archival material over the network doesn't exist.
I would love for the courts to establish a first-sale doctrine that applies to digitized books, or that allows shifting a books format (buying a physical copy of a book and converting it to digital)
>They weren't just handing out unlimited copies of books.
I don't think that's accurate. This lawsuit didn't happen until they stopped enforcing the constraint that (# of concurrent digital loans) ≤ (# of physical copies IA and their partner libraries have). Thats very different from a regular library, where the number of copies they loan out can't exceed the number of copies they physically posses (or ebook licenses they have, which is a whole nother rabbithole).
There is a perhaps novel, perhaps not, argument to be made that virtually time-limited lending of a digital copy of a physical book you own is covered by first sale. May be a reason the publishers never pushed it.
There's also a whole other issue around scraping copyrighted public web pages in general but between being a non-profit archive, respecting robots.txt, and (at least mostly) taking pages down on request, TIA seems to have mostly skirted legal attention in that respect.
(Though it's probably a bit legally iffy. If I create an online comics museum and start hosting all sorts of syndicated content, I'm probably going to get a letter from a lawyer.)
Archival institutions are allowed to make digitized copies of legitimately owned works, and to allow access to that copy on their own "premises".
In the case of an organization like the internet archive which does not have physical premises, would you accept the argument that their 'premises' is the internet?
The question that they want answered is: where exactly is the line between looking at a scanned/microfiched/non-original archival copy of copyrighted material at the library, and viewing that same material over a network connection.
They weren't just handing out unlimited copies of books. They were distributing owned copies of books for exclusive temporary use. The method of delivery is different, but the end result is the same as checking a book out and leaving the library.
Just because public libraries signed shitty deals to get access to lending ebook licenses doesn't mean that the right to lend archival material over the network doesn't exist.
I would love for the courts to establish a first-sale doctrine that applies to digitized books, or that allows shifting a books format (buying a physical copy of a book and converting it to digital)