No other organization provides a backup to this content, so if it’s wiped out, it’s permanently gone."
@LexisNexis 3/ From @LexisNexis: "Even if the @openlibrary is forced to close, information-access supporters (including many lawyers) hope that the organization can continue the #WaybackMachine and other preservation efforts that publishers aren’t targeting in the lawsuit."
From @communia_eu: "The [Hachette v. Internet Archive] decision highlights more general problems with the e-lending business model, not just in the US but also in the EU....Six issues stand out in particular:" 🧵
"1. Licensing contracts expire and need to be renewed after a certain number of loans, in theory simulating the physical degradation of books, but leading to disproportionate prices overall."
"2. Many ebooks are only licensed to libraries after a windowing period to avoid competition during the market introduction of a book, leading to undue delays for library users."
Disappearing titles are bad for libraries & the patrons we serve. Libraries want to #OwnBooks.
With VHS & DVD, libraries could buy sets, lend to patrons & safeguard copies for cultural posterity. With streaming, the shows just vanish 👻 We don’t want books to suffer the same fate! We want a digital future for libraries where they can own & preserve digital books. #OwnBooks
A group of intellectual property law professors lead by @rtushnet submitted a “friend of the court” brief in support of @internetarchive and controlled digital lending today in our case against Hachette, PRH, HarperCollins and Wiley. 🧵eff.org/document/hache…
@rtushnet 2/ The law professors’ brief notes that nonprofit libraries “serve important democratic interests” and “enable a richer, more democratic culture.”
3/ They explain that, in contrast to @internetarchive’s CDL, the publisher’s “putative licensing alternatives regularly come with policies that harm the larger mission of libraries to preserve information and make it available to citizens on a nondiscriminatory basis.”