I saw a comment expressing this ruling is only applicable to e-books where there already exists an e-book from the publisher, and that it won’t affect media preservation or books that have been scanned (e.g., old textbooks) and that do not have an e-book. Is this true? If so, it’s not all bad.
You are correct: the ruling simply affirms the plaintiff’s claim against IA.
Any out-of-copyright and non-copyright items, as well as items with permissive terms (e.g., Creative Commons licenses) will still be available on IA. Previously, the plaintiff Hachette offered a deal that IA rejected, in which IA would be allowed to make digital copies of Hachette texts that are either out-of-print titles, or titles for which digital copies have never been produced.
Right now, it’s up to Hachette and the other publishers affected in the case whether that offer is still available.
I saw a comment expressing this ruling is only applicable to e-books where there already exists an e-book from the publisher, and that it won’t affect media preservation or books that have been scanned (e.g., old textbooks) and that do not have an e-book. Is this true? If so, it’s not all bad.
I didn’t see anything in the ruling that would restrict it in that way, but i would be happy to be wrong there.
You are correct: the ruling simply affirms the plaintiff’s claim against IA.
Any out-of-copyright and non-copyright items, as well as items with permissive terms (e.g., Creative Commons licenses) will still be available on IA. Previously, the plaintiff Hachette offered a deal that IA rejected, in which IA would be allowed to make digital copies of Hachette texts that are either out-of-print titles, or titles for which digital copies have never been produced.
Right now, it’s up to Hachette and the other publishers affected in the case whether that offer is still available.
edited: hyphens.