In a significant setback for the Internet Archive, the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the non-profit organization in the ongoing lawsuit brought by four major publishers—Hachette, Penguin Random House, Wiley, and HarperCollins. The lawsuit, which centers on the Internet Archive’s digital library, was filed in 2020, alleging that the platform’s practices constitute industrial-scale intentional digital piracy.
The Internet Archive has long provided a system called Open Library, allowing users to borrow digital scans of physical books. The library operates on a principle known as controlled digital lending, which essentially equates each loan to the purchase of a physical book in a library, theoretically mitigating claims of copyright infringement. This system contrasts with OverDrive, a platform where publishers offer electronic books as time-limited licenses on their own terms.
However, the Internet Archive significantly expanded its library services during the COVID-19 pandemic, launching the National Emergency Library, which allowed unlimited access to the same electronic book copies. This move prompted the publishers to unite in a lawsuit against both the Internet Archive and OverDrive, focusing on their online lending practices.
In its decision, the Second Circuit Court acknowledged the dual benefits and drawbacks of the Internet Archive’s digital library. Yet, the court ultimately sided with the publishers, stating:
On one hand, the cost of e-book licensing could place a burden on libraries, potentially limiting access to creative works. On the other hand, authors have a right to be compensated for the reproduction and dissemination of their original works. Congress has struck a balance between these ‘competitive demands on the public interest’ in the Copyright Act. Here, we must adhere to this balance.
Last year, a federal judge ruled that the Internet Archive was not entitled to lend books in a library-like manner, prompting the organization to appeal the decision. In a response posted on the Internet Archive’s website, Chris Freeland, the library services director, expressed disappointment with the court’s ruling:
We are disappointed with today’s decision regarding the Internet Archive’s ability to lend books in a digital manner, particularly those that already exist elsewhere in electronic form. We are reviewing the court’s opinion and will continue to defend the rights of libraries to own, lend, and preserve books.
Freeland also highlighted the public’s ability to sign a petition, available on change.org, to restore access to the 500,000 books that have been restricted by the publishers in the Hachette vs. Internet Archive lawsuit.
Public Response and Advocacy
As the legal dispute continues, the Internet Archive’s supporters are encouraged to sign a petition on change.org to advocate for greater access to the 500,000 books that have been restricted by the publishers in the lawsuit. The petition aims to restore access to these books and bring attention to the issue of digital lending and copyright law.
This ruling and the ongoing legal battle underscore the complex and evolving nature of digital copyright law, particularly in the context of digital lending and access to information. The Internet Archive’s actions, while aimed at preserving and making knowledge accessible, have faced scrutiny from publishers who argue that such practices infringe on their rights and the financial viability of their business models.
The outcome of this case not only impacts the Internet Archive’s operations but also has implications for the broader debate on copyright, digital rights, and the role of libraries in the digital age. As the legal proceedings continue, the Internet Archive remains committed to defending its library services, advocating for the rights of libraries, and exploring new ways to balance copyright law with the public’s right to access information.
Views: 0