[flagged]
Our fight is far from over
11–20 of 72 posts
Re: Our fight is far from over
#12[flagged]
Here's a press release from the ALA on the recent increase in book challenges:
https://www.ala.org/news/press-releases/2022/09/ala-releases...
> Between January 1 and August 31, 2022, ALA documented 681 attempts to ban or restrict library resources, and 1,651 unique titles were targeted. In 2021, ALA reported 729 attempts to censor library resources, targeting 1,597 books, which represented the highest number of attempted book bans since ALA began compiling these lists more than 20 years ago.
Re: Our fight is far from over
#13[flagged]
Re: Our fight is far from over
#14The specific development this post references is a proposed injunction [1] that Internet Archive and the publishers agreed on and sent to the judge. With certain exceptions (such as accessibility and fair use), IA would have to remove from its lending program any books that are commercially available from the publishers. IA wants "commercially available in electronic text format" and the publishers want "commercially available in any format", they've asked the judge to settle that point. IA reserves the right to appeal the judgement.
[1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17211300/214/1/hachette...
Re: Our fight is far from over
#15This is about the "National Emergency Library" they launched during the peak of the COVID pandemic? I think they had good intentions, but the legality around it was definitely questionable from the start.
No, this is about controlled digital lending as a whole. The ruling issued struck down all CDL, and only mentioned the National Emergency Library to say that it was also illegal as CDL was illegal.
Re: Our fight is far from over
#16Chris Freeland is a menace to our library. The case was open and shut.
Re: Our fight is far from over
#17I like what the internet archive is doing, but I'm saddened that many just use it as a hack to get around paywalls. I don't think that's in alignment with the internet archive's mission.
I think it's important for society in the long-term to keep journalism a rewarding profession.
Maybe as a compromise the internet archive could only allow access to archived journalism content after, say, a year's time. We'd be sure things got archived, and journalists would still get paid.
Re: Our fight is far from over
#18This is a bizarre post. It says nothing about what the papers filed actually mean. The papers are a proposed permanent injunction that both the publishers and IA have (mostly) agreed on, although the IA wants the injunction to only apply to books that are in print and licensed by the publishers as ebooks. The publishers want it to apply to all books. I don't know why IA decided to post about it in such a cryptic way,…
I assume they made this small post for those already familiar with the case, and they'll have new larger write-ups on it as the appeal draws nearer. It reads like an update for those already subscribed to their newsletter on the issue.
Re: Our fight is far from over
#19IMHO they were very dumb to do the emergency lending nonsense to begin with. A good example of letting ideology walk you past the cliff. Even if they’re successful against the injunction the damage has been done. Given how tenuous online lending is already, it was naive to push the boundary further. I feel a similar ideological gap is slowly growing in the treatment of data surrounding generative AI.
The emergency lending has almost no relevance in this case, which is about controlled digital lending as a whole
Re: Our fight is far from over
#20IMHO they were very dumb to do the emergency lending nonsense to begin with. A good example of letting ideology walk you past the cliff. Even if they’re successful against the injunction the damage has been done. Given how tenuous online lending is already, it was naive to push the boundary further. I feel a similar ideological gap is slowly growing in the treatment of data surrounding generative AI.
The emergency lending has almost no relevance in this case, which is about controlled digital lending as a whole
The initial ruling cited emergency lending to justify banning all digital lending and the case was only brought up due to it as well.
It has the utmost relevance. It’s no coincidence the initial suit happened mere months after the emergency lending began.