This is a IA news story, published by Ars Technica, that relates primarily to McSherry news.
For more IA news, you can click here:
more IA newsFor more McSherry news, you can click here:
more McSherry newsFor more Us federal policies news, you can click here:
more Us federal policies newsFor more news from Ars Technica, you can click here:
more news from Ars TechnicaOtherweb, Inc is a public benefit corporation, dedicated to improving the quality of news people consume. We are non-partisan, junk-free, and ad-free. We use artificial intelligence (AI) to remove junk from your news feed, and allow you to select the best politics news, business news, entertainment news, and much more. If you like this article about Us federal policies, you might also like this article about
ebook licensing market. We are dedicated to bringing you the highest-quality news, junk-free and ad-free, about your favorite topics. Please come every day to read the latest IA readers news, many IA readers news, news about Us federal policies, and other high-quality news about any topic that interests you. We are working hard to create the best news aggregator on the web, and to put you in control of your news feed - whether you choose to read the latest news through our website, our news app, or our daily newsletter - all free!
costly ebook licensingArs Technica
•82% Informative
Internet Archive went before a three -judge panel Friday to defend its open library's digital lending practices.
Publishers won a lawsuit claiming that the archive's lending violated copyright law.
In the weeks ahead of the ruling, IA was forced to remove 500,000 books from its collection, shocking users.
Judges appeared to be more focused on understanding how IA 's lending hurts publishers' profits.
Since neither side seems prepared to back down, the Supreme Court eventually weighing in seems inevitable. McSherry seemed optimistic that the judges at least understood the stakes for IA readers, noting that fair use is "designed to ensure that copyright actually serves the public interest," not publishers'. Should the court decide otherwise, McSherry warned, the court risks allowing "a few powerful publishers" to "hijack the future of books." When IA first appealed, Kahle put out a statement saying IA couldn't walk away from "a fight to keep library books available for those seeking truth in the digital age.".
VR Score
87
Informative language
89
Neutral language
30
Article tone
semi-formal
Language
English
Language complexity
56
Offensive language
not offensive
Hate speech
not hateful
Attention-grabbing headline
not detected
Known propaganda techniques
not detected
Time-value
short-lived
External references
3
Source diversity
3
Affiliate links
no affiliate links