@juergen_hubert, they have a subsidiary in Europe, but that does not fully address the problem.

@juergen_hubert I'm thinking along similar lines, but so far I've only downloaded an offline version of wikpedia Project Gutenberg. Not really what we need, but better than nothing.

@juergen_hubert i fear that decentralisation might work poorly in this case - long term preservation of curated accessible data needs effort and money. You'll need to store each item on many nodes - and this will need some orchestration and management. And global search should be possible, which is an issue.

@minzastro

Well, #Fediverse systems like #BookWyrm and #NeoDB already allow for global search of media metadata.

I realize that storing actual PDFs and the like on such servers will require a lot more server capacity, but is the principle really all that different?

And there are plenty of independent digital libraries hosted by universities and research institutes, such as the MDZ (which I use a lot). But they use different software and generally only allow local search.

I feel that if there was a Fediverse approach to hosting and searching for such documents - one which private users could also host - then it would be a huge step forward for preserving our cultural heritage.

@juergen_hubert yes. https://sciop.net is an effort for scientific works; if you're interested in using the code for one with a focus on public domain media, do get in touch

@juergen_hubert@mementomori.social
The reason why The Internet Archive hasn't been shut down is that it does NOT play fast and loose with copyright. Archiving news stories and website pages is 100% Fair Use. But I agree wth you that there needs to be more organizations like IA.

@gme

What about the "National Emergency Library"?

@juergen_hubert@mementomori.social
You're talking about IA's response to Covid and national lock down when 90%+ of working age adults and school/ college aged children and young adults were all forced to work and study from home on a weekend's notice? When every Library in this Country shuttered as well?

You're talking about a novel and new idea from an organization who's mission to archive and preserve the Internet's knowledge.

You're talking about an organization that was sued by publishers, and where the publishers won.

And you're talking about an organization that complied with the Court's order and discontinued it's service.

You're also talking about an organization that, when it launched said "National Emergency Library", was not breaking any Copyright law.

It wasn't only until Publishers sued, and won, where a Court determined that the Internet Archive was not entitled to Fair Use for the National Emergency Library.

At least in the US, every one accused of a crime or violating a regulation is presumed innocent and is emphatically not guilty until either a Judge or a Jury convicts them.

So, to respond and answer your original question:

What about the "National Emergency Library"?

What about it?



https://blog.archive.org/2020/03/24/announcing-a-national-emergency-library-to-provide-digitized-books-to-students-and-the-public/

To address our unprecedented global and immediate need for access to reading and research materials, as of today, March 24, 2020, the Internet Archive will suspend waitlists for the 1.4 million (and growing) books in our lending library by creating a National Emergency Library to serve the nation’s displaced learners. This suspension will run through June 30, 2020, or the end of the US national emergency, whichever is later.

@gme

'You're also talking about an organization that, when it launched said "National Emergency Library", was not breaking any Copyright law.'

They distributed more digital copies of books than they actually bought, without any agreement to that effect with copyright holders. How is that "not breaking any copyright law"?

@juergen_hubert@mementomori.social
Because under U.S. Law and the Constitution, a Defendant is presumed innocent until they are convicted in a Court of Law.

It doesn't matter if I murdered my neighbor, or downloaded 300TB of music from Spotify.

I would not be guilty of either crime until I was convicted.

The Internet Archive wasn't convicted until the Publishers won their case in Court. Therefore, when the Publishers sued The Internet Archive, they were not guilty of any crime or civil infraction.

A lawsuit is an accusation only. A criminal indictment is an accusation only.

@gme

...so by the same standards, US companies aren't violating my privacy rights unless they are convicted in an US court?

Okay, sure, whatever. If that's your understanding of the legal part of what they did, then you do you.

So let me tackle this from another perspective.

I am a self-published author.

I have released a very large portion of my work under a #CreativeCommons Zero license. I am generally in favor of the free flow of information.

But I still wouldn't want others to freely share my work in its entirety - that is, including the parts for which I retain #copyright - without my consent.

Even if our legal perspectives differ - do you agree that consent matters?

@juergen_hubert@mementomori.social

...so by the same standards, US companies aren't violating my privacy rights unless they are convicted in an US court?

That's not what I said and I'm sure you know that.

Does US Law and the Constitution apply in Countries other than the US?

I mean, look, I may be guilty of violating the UK's Terrorism Act if I write, "I support Palestine Action and the fundamental rights of all Palestinians. Free Gaza! Free Palestine! From the river to the sea Palestine will be free!"

The UK government proscribed Palestine Action as a terrorist organization under the Terrorism Act 2000 in July 2025, making it a crime to be a member or express support, punishable by up to 14 years in prison.

But those same words are protected speech by the US Constitution. Since I am a US Citizen, on US soil, I can say whatever the fuck I want about Israel or the UK Government. Fuck Israel and fuck Yvette Cooper and Kier Starmer. Actually, fuck King Charles, too, for marrying Diana when he didn't love her, and treating Harry like shit.

But I'm sure if the UK Government wanted to, they could put out a warrant for my arrest. But I'd have a pretty good chance to quash it because of the First Amendment.

The UK has a different legal and justice system than the US, and has no Freedom of Speech. "Proscription" is blatantly Unconstitutional in the US. It's not in the UK.

So geography definitely matters, and while other Countries have the concept of innocent until proven guilty, no other countries are as absolute in that than the US.

I am a self-published author.

So am I.

I have released a very large portion of my work under a #CreativeCommons Zero license. I am generally in favor of the free flow of information.

All of my works are released under CC-BY-SA, even the one's I sell at Amazon. I respect your CC0 decision.

But I still wouldn't want others to freely share my work in its entirety - that is, including the parts for which I retain #copyright - without my consent.

Have you read the CC0 license? If you don't want others to freely share your works you need to license your works under a different license.

Even if our legal perspectives differ - do you agree that consent matters?

Not when it comes to works I've created and have made the conscious decision to let others use my work freely, no. Sorry.

@gme I mentioned _specifically_ the parts which I _haven't_ released under CC0, and over which I thus retain full copyright.

Is it okay to share these without my consent, too?

@juergen_hubert@mementomori.social
I misunderstood you. I interpreted your point to mean that you have chapters or content that was embedded within a CC0 work, but that you had licensed separately, and more restrictively, than the CC0 license the excerpts were embedded in.

So sticking with just Copyright...

The Berne Convention treaty on Copyright pretty much says that all countries/ signatories agree to enforce the copyright of other countries as if the works were published in the other country originally.

I also agree (and accept) that Copyright often -- but not always -- requires consent and permission to use a copyrighted work from the copyright owner.

There are exceptions to Copyright Law in most countries.

Fair Use is one of them. A library purchasing a copy of a book and lending it out to multiple people is "fair use". (Publishers want to get rid of libraries because they want the public to purchase their own copies so they make more money.)

The Internet Archive is not some side project. It's a large, financially regulated (all non-profits are), NGO with a clear and distinct mission.

They also have lawyers. Probably not on staff, but they have lawyers on retainer. Guaranteed.

It would also be a fair assumption that The Internet Archive most likely received clearance from their lawyers that what they wanted to do with the National Emergency Library was legal or they wouldn't have done it.

Is it okay to share these without my consent, too?

If I want to criticize it, comment on it, or use it for teaching and research then yes!

-----

Fair use is a U.S. legal doctrine under Section 107 of the Copyright Act that permits limited use of copyrighted material without permission for purposes such as criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. It acts as an affirmative defense against infringement claims, balancing creator rights with public interest through a case-by-case analysis of four factors. 

The Four Factors of Fair Use 

Courts evaluate four key factors to determine if a use is fair: 

1. Purpose and Character: Whether the use is transformative (adds new meaning/message), non-profit, or educational.
2. Nature of the Copyrighted Work: Using material from factual works is more likely to be fair than using highly creative works (novels, movies).
3. Amount and Substantiality: Using small, non-essential portions of the work is more likely to be fair than using large or "heart of the work" portions.
4. Effect on the Market: Whether the new use harms the copyright owner's ability to profit from or sell their original work. 

Application to Specific Contexts 

- Parody: Parody often qualifies as fair use because it inherently transforms the original work to comment on or criticize it.
- Education: Teaching, research, and scholarship are explicitly listed as potential fair uses, such as using excerpts for classroom discussions, though it does not automatically exempt all educational uses. 

Legal Basis and History 

- Legal Basis: Codified in Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, this doctrine ensures copyright does not stifle free speech and creativity.
- History: Developed through common law and judicial decisions, fair use stems from a long history of courts balancing the rights of owners with public interest, notably evolving from British law, before being formally codified in the U.S.. 

*Note: Only a court can definitively determine if a specific use is fair.*

-----

*Note: Only a court can definitively determine if a specific use is fair.*

The Internet Archive claimed that their National Emergency Archive was fair. Publishers disagreed. Publishers sued. Judge agreed with Publishers. The National Emergency Archive was not fair use. The Internet Archive ceased its operation.

@gme

Okay, maybe we have just been talking past each other due major differences in cultural and legal traditions.

According to my limited understanding of German law - which follows the Civil Law tradition, like most European countries - if a court determines that you broke the law at some point in the last (based on the laws that were in force during that time), then the court merely formally acknowledges the fact that you were breaking the law at the time, instead of making you suddenly into a law-breaker at the time they pass their verdict.

But it seems that the USA - which follows the Common Law tradition, like most of the Anglosphere - does this very, very differently.