• FaceDeer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      Why does that make a difference? They were making copies, that’s copyright violation. The pandemic didn’t suspend copyright law.

      • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        The internet archive were probably counting on publishers goodwill to temporarily allowing relaxed lending rule. It’s not like they were distributing unlocked copies anyway (each copy expire in a few days IIRC thanks to DRM). Turns out the publishers don’t have any empathy even during pandemic and blow it out of proportion, as if the internet archive was turning into libgen and distributing unlocked pdf to everyone on the internet.

        My own personal theory is the internet archive is not afraid of getting shut down and testing the water to see how far they can get away with poking the copyright law. They must have a contingency plan in case their non-profit organization got shut down to ensure its archive preservation in order to be this brazen.

        • FaceDeer@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          The internet archive were probably counting on publishers goodwill

          I hope they learned a valuable lesson. A valuable, expensive, obvious lesson.

      • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        But it is. The ebook contains drm and can only be opened with adobe software. It can’t be opened anymore once the lending time expired. The internet archive simply allowed more people to borrow them, but not letting them borrow the books indefinitely so the lent books will still expire (though they can still re-borrow again by logging in to the internet archive library).