IA is so important at this point that it should be given special dispensation by the government, and even fully supported by tax dollars. Imagine the tragedy of it being shut down because of some busybodies at publishing houses that just want to exert control over their lending policies. Imagine 100 years from now when all history of this period is lost due to this greed and shortsightedness. $60M is nothing in the grand scheme of how important IA is for documenting our living human history.

>The lawsuit aims to stop the longstanding and widespread library practice of Controlled Digital Lending, which would stop the hundreds of libraries using that system, including the Internet Archive, from providing their patrons with digital books.

I could of swore the entire reason IA got in trouble is they decided to lend out unlimited copies.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/11/books/internet-archive-na...

Common sense dictates you don't do this. Don't poke the bear. A blatant violation of copyright law isn't a good way to stay afloat.

It would be nice for IA to come to a settlement. Stop offering books period. We have Libby which does this with local libraries.

The lawsuit is pathetic.

Publishers have completely exposed themselves as useless rent-seekers and I say this as a person who started reading at 5 and have never stopped. When an author gets an advance to write a book...then fails to do so for 7+ years with no sign from the publisher that enforcement (either retraction of funds or something) is in the offing...they no longer look necessary or credible. At a certain point the internet is a better distribution model for all but the unknown...and publishers won't take a chance on them anyway unless they know someone in the office.

I got into a "discussion" with a midlist author last year about the fact that they had cancelled a planned series of books with nothing said to their readers and then sent emails around touting another series with a different protagonist. They haughtily explained to me that I knew nothing about publishing and that the publisher had cancelled the previous series. I replied that I didn't need to know anything about publishing just arithmetic. They knew how many copies of each book they sold so they had a pretty good idea of how many people were waiting for the next book. I asked them to multiply that by $5 at a minimum and said that that was how much money they were leaving on the table....and no I wasn't interested in anymore books from them because the series might end with no warning and I'd rather spend my time elsewhere.

The problem is that Publishing, much like Journalism, as an industry has never learned to think laterally and invest in adjacent things...like ink companies, paper alternatives and printing plants. They should be following the lead of companies like Macquarie in Australia or MSLO (yes, Martha Stewart) who took her knowledge of "how it should be done" and sold it down market to great effect.

Book Publishers are one trick ponies and they need to broaden their bases and it shouldn't include going after an archive service that effective hurt no one and possibly help a few people deal with being cooped up during the pandemic. Journalists have the same problem and an equally useless response. Ads are not the answer...better journalism and investing in research houses, specialty publishers etc.