![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Just a note to be cautious about what you say this case was about. The case was about whether or not the National Emergency Library was fair use. It is not about whether CDL is inherently copyright infringement. The publishers argued that the NEL was not fair use because, among other things, they contend that CDL is inherently copyright infringement. The judge's response to the motions for summary judgement indicates to me that they are sympathetic to the view that CDL is inherently copyright infringement, but the case was about whether or not the NEL was fair use. The judge determined that the NEL was not fair use and directed the parties to discuss how the case should be resolved in light of that decision. That's it.
The IA is likely to appeal, and further litigation on this case might make a grander statement about whether or not CDL remains legal. For now, CDL remains legal because this case was not about CDL. Future cases about CDL will likely cite the judgment of this case to ask for future, more explicit precedents to be set against CDL, but those precedents have not come yet. lethargilistic ( talk) 05:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Similar discussions of Hachette v. IA appear in other articles. Their content needs to be 'unified' with the description here. Other articles:
Open Library#Hachette v. Internet Archive - links to this Main article
Internet Archive#National Emergency Library, Publishers' lawsuit - links to this Main article
LarryLACa ( talk) 21:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
The "Lawsuit" section currently says, "Both sides filed motions for summary judgment. ... A final judgment is still pending." It continues, "At issue is whether the lawsuit is limited to the 12 weeks of expanded lending through the NEL and whether Open Library self-generated ebook CDL lending is fair use in general", citing "OPINION" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2023-03-30..
However, the source cited is labeled "Opinion & Order" by John G. Koeltl, District Judge", the first page of which ends with "the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is granted, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied."
Thanks, DavidMCEddy ( talk) 16:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC).
@ Lethargilistic:, et al.: I have more questions:
FYI, I'm scheduled to discuss this in a radio broadcast next Tuesday, April 18, 6-6:30 PM Central US time. I plan to fill over 2/3 of that time with excerpts from a press conference organized by the Internet Archive just before oral arguments. Between now and then I need another 5 minutes (600 words) on the current status. [1]
Thanks, DavidMCEddy ( talk) 14:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
References
@ Peacedance: I like most of your edits of 2023-05-02T03:08:30, but the last one is not accurate. You wrote:
In fact, the case is still pending. Text you deleted included documentation of that, which is dated 2023-03-29, four days AFTER your "CommonDreams" reference of 2023-03-25. I've just modified that text in this article, citing what seems to be the most recent document filed in this case.
Thanks for your support of the Wikipedia project. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 15:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
References
DavidMCEddy ( talk) 15:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
https://archive.org/details/consent-judgment-in-hachette-v-internet-archive
@ DavidMCEddy @ Peacedance Karlstutzman ( talk) 12:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
This might be against WP rules, but I don't know where to go with this yet: IA is going to have to remove books, and there seems to be some good media strategy to bury this story and prevent public backlash. NYT didn't include "Internet Archive" in the title, and the long, rambling article rehashes trivia until the very end where it mentions the outcome of the case in very vague terms. https://web.archive.org/web/20230815121049/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/13/business/media/internet-archive-emergency-lending-library.html And in the meantime, the music industry has come out with a new lawsuit against IA over music that has seemed to outshine the book loss story. Going to try to spread the word some more today on Reddit, etc. Peacedance ( talk) 16:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
This article is not up to date. It's current as of March 2023, but the settlement and injunction terms are not described at all or only cursory. -- Green C 07:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Just a note to be cautious about what you say this case was about. The case was about whether or not the National Emergency Library was fair use. It is not about whether CDL is inherently copyright infringement. The publishers argued that the NEL was not fair use because, among other things, they contend that CDL is inherently copyright infringement. The judge's response to the motions for summary judgement indicates to me that they are sympathetic to the view that CDL is inherently copyright infringement, but the case was about whether or not the NEL was fair use. The judge determined that the NEL was not fair use and directed the parties to discuss how the case should be resolved in light of that decision. That's it.
The IA is likely to appeal, and further litigation on this case might make a grander statement about whether or not CDL remains legal. For now, CDL remains legal because this case was not about CDL. Future cases about CDL will likely cite the judgment of this case to ask for future, more explicit precedents to be set against CDL, but those precedents have not come yet. lethargilistic ( talk) 05:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Similar discussions of Hachette v. IA appear in other articles. Their content needs to be 'unified' with the description here. Other articles:
Open Library#Hachette v. Internet Archive - links to this Main article
Internet Archive#National Emergency Library, Publishers' lawsuit - links to this Main article
LarryLACa ( talk) 21:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
The "Lawsuit" section currently says, "Both sides filed motions for summary judgment. ... A final judgment is still pending." It continues, "At issue is whether the lawsuit is limited to the 12 weeks of expanded lending through the NEL and whether Open Library self-generated ebook CDL lending is fair use in general", citing "OPINION" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2023-03-30..
However, the source cited is labeled "Opinion & Order" by John G. Koeltl, District Judge", the first page of which ends with "the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is granted, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied."
Thanks, DavidMCEddy ( talk) 16:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC).
@ Lethargilistic:, et al.: I have more questions:
FYI, I'm scheduled to discuss this in a radio broadcast next Tuesday, April 18, 6-6:30 PM Central US time. I plan to fill over 2/3 of that time with excerpts from a press conference organized by the Internet Archive just before oral arguments. Between now and then I need another 5 minutes (600 words) on the current status. [1]
Thanks, DavidMCEddy ( talk) 14:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
References
@ Peacedance: I like most of your edits of 2023-05-02T03:08:30, but the last one is not accurate. You wrote:
In fact, the case is still pending. Text you deleted included documentation of that, which is dated 2023-03-29, four days AFTER your "CommonDreams" reference of 2023-03-25. I've just modified that text in this article, citing what seems to be the most recent document filed in this case.
Thanks for your support of the Wikipedia project. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 15:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
References
DavidMCEddy ( talk) 15:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
https://archive.org/details/consent-judgment-in-hachette-v-internet-archive
@ DavidMCEddy @ Peacedance Karlstutzman ( talk) 12:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
This might be against WP rules, but I don't know where to go with this yet: IA is going to have to remove books, and there seems to be some good media strategy to bury this story and prevent public backlash. NYT didn't include "Internet Archive" in the title, and the long, rambling article rehashes trivia until the very end where it mentions the outcome of the case in very vague terms. https://web.archive.org/web/20230815121049/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/13/business/media/internet-archive-emergency-lending-library.html And in the meantime, the music industry has come out with a new lawsuit against IA over music that has seemed to outshine the book loss story. Going to try to spread the word some more today on Reddit, etc. Peacedance ( talk) 16:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
This article is not up to date. It's current as of March 2023, but the settlement and injunction terms are not described at all or only cursory. -- Green C 07:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)