In this case, and others, it has done so with the legal support of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a non-profit law firm where Archive co-founder Brewster Kahle serves on the board (and where, full disclosure, I formerly worked on policy issues including copyright and privacy, but not this case). Due in part to its position as an independent non-profit and in part to its founding values, it has been willing to take informed and aggressive actions on behalf of its users, from challenging FBI requests to taking advantage of the fair use doctrine to preserve and host media that might otherwise be lost. Under this model, libraries can loan books not because it is their right, but because they have been granted permission, and that permission can come with terms.Īmong libraries, the Internet Archive is an unusual institution. In practice, publishers offer a different and more restrictive worldview: instead of outright selling a copy of a book to a library (or even just a reader), they offer a license to that book that can in turn be restricted. And for readers, this is simply what we call “owning a book.” This lawsuit is the next arena in the debate over whether that model will persist in a digital age. That idea is in some ways the cornerstone of modern libraries: publishers sell the library a copy of a book, and then libraries do their thing with it. Once a copy of a book (or a movie, or a painting, or a zine) has been sold, the buyer has a wide berth to do what they want with that copy, including reading and rereading but also reselling or loaning it out. Historically, copyright holders have been able to issue a limited set of restrictions over their works. And yet, the significance of the lawsuit is even larger as it poses important questions about who gets to say how information is shared. Because the Archive has, for decades, served as key infrastructure for thousands of online communities - including zine authors and publishers who have relied on its servers for free hosting and bandwidth - the potential fallout is massive. A courtroom battle kicked off by major book publishers over its digital book lending program is proceeding to its next stage. I'm not quite sure what the best method to accomplish that might be.The Internet Archive is in a legal fight for its life. It seems like we must modify the height of "BRcontainer" before passing it to getidealspreadsize, when in full screen view. In the stock Bookreader.js library, the function getidealspreadsize calculates the height and width to render the page sizes, and it uses the dimensions of "BRcontainer" to do so. So, "BookReader" and "BRcontainer" end up with the same height values, matching the available height of the browser window, however the "top" value assigned to "BRcontainer" pushes the bottom of that div below the viewable area of the browser window. This function also adds a "top" value to "BRcontainer" of BRtoolbar height +5 (usually 45px). The islandora_book_reader.js file, which is found in the Islandora Internet Archive Bookreader module, contains the function (ln 602), which appears to set the height of both the "BookReader" and "BRcontainer" divs to 100% when in full screen view. Here is a little more detail from my tracing through the code. This is most noticeable with content, such as these newspapers, that have text that flows to the bottom of the image file.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |