The American Library Association and others are concerned that the lawsuit is a challenge to freedom of information amid a spate of threats against libraries.
In March of last year, internet archive has been forced to curtail e-book lending following a ruling against e-libraries in a lawsuit coordinated by the American Association of Publishers (AAP).at a celebration press release, AAP President Maria A. Pallante sought to draw a contrast between the Internet Archive and the “thousands of public libraries across the country that serve their communities every day,” but Pallante expressed gratitude. expressed. But in December, more than 100,000 of these libraries American Library Association (ALA) and Research Library Association (ARL) announced its support for the Internet Archive’s appeal of this lawsuit.
“This is a fight to make library books available to truth seekers in the digital age,” says Brewster Kahle, founder of the Internet Archive. And other libraries seem to agree.
a court preparation document The lawsuit filed by ALA and ARL asks the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider the lower court’s decision, taking into account the impact not only on the Internet Archive but also on libraries across the country. The appeal comes as libraries across the country try to stem a wave of threats.
Hachette vs. Internet Archive
“This lawsuit is an attack on established practices used by hundreds of libraries, even traditional libraries, to provide public access to their collections,” Karl said.
The lawsuit against the Internet Archive, coordinated by AAP, involved lead plaintiff Hachette as well as some of the world’s biggest publishers, including Penguin Random House, HarperCollins and Wiley. The lawsuit, filed in 2020, alleged that the Internet Archive committed copyright infringement by scanning copies of publishers’ books and distributing them online through the National Emergency Library.
In response to the beginning of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, the Internet Archive announced that the National Emergency Library launched. The Internet Archive scans books that are purchased or donated, encrypts the files created to prevent copying, and uses digital rights management tools to lend books to one reader at a time for a limited period of time. In this way, we supported the National Emergency Library. The Internet Archive claimed this was protected by “fair use.” Fair use permits the use of copyrighted material without permission when the market for the copyrighted material is non-commercial, limited, and/or negligible.
Judge John G. Koeltl dissented.In Kertl judgement, the Internet Archive, a nonprofit organization that does not charge readers a subscription fee, benefited from the National Emergency Library through donations. There were no restrictions on its lending. And it threatened the e-book market. As a result, the Internet Archive was forced in August 2023 to remove the digital version of the title, which the publisher had sold as an e-book.
Internet Archive vs. Hachette
The Internet Archive is currently appealing Koeltl’s ruling.the first court preparation document ongoing incident (known as) Hachette vs. Internet Archive), the Internet Archive alleges that Koeltl fundamentally misunderstood the facts of the case, particularly regarding fair use. The Internet Archive argues that just as fair use protects non-profit, limited, non-market lending by traditional libraries, it also protects such lending by digital libraries. Even more alarming, the opposite could be true. If fair use is denied for digital libraries, it may also be denied for traditional libraries.
This is where the American Library Association and Research Library Association come into play.
““This lawsuit is part of a long-standing disagreement between libraries and publishers about how copyright principles should apply to libraries in the digital age,” said Jonathan Band, an attorney for both companies. To tell. ALA and ARL.
In the aforementioned brief in support of the appeal, the library makes clear that it is not filing in favor of the publisher or the Internet Archive, but in defense of fair use. Their concerns center on Koeltl’s determination that donations involve profits and that digitization is not protected by fair use. If this ruling is upheld, all libraries will become for-profit businesses and will be unable to continue essential services such as digital archives.
“The ALA and ARL brief asks the court to uphold the library’s fair use rights by correcting the district court’s error in characterizing commercial use of the Internet Archive based on the first element of fair use. “There are,” said Katherine Krosek, director of information policy at ARL. “If the publisher prevails on the ultimate question of fairness, we will require the court to formulate its opinion in a way that is closely tailored to the facts of the case in order to preserve the library’s fair use in other library situations.”
Whether the Internet Archive and its supporters prevail remains to be determined. The publisher is expected to file a counter-preparation later this month, and the court will then set a date for the hearing.
“The idea that the Internet Archive and libraries could convert millions of electronic books from print books and distribute them to the public without the consent or compensation of authors or publishers has no legal support,” the association said. said General Counsel Terrence Hart. American publisher. “Plaintiff Publishers intends to vigorously litigate the appeals in this case, which embodies the fundamental principles of copyright.”
Al vs library such as book ban
As previously mentioned, Hachette vs. Internet Archive It comes amid a wave of threats against libraries. Last March, three days after the AAP issued a celebratory press release regarding Koertl’s sentencing, the ALA issued its own press release. statement It condemns the “violence, threats of violence, and other acts of intimidation that are increasingly occurring in America’s libraries.”
An Internet Archive tally estimates that there were many more loans in existence before Koeltl’s decision. 500 banned books, has since been forced to cease circulation. If successful, sustained appeals could help stem the tide and save libraries, large and small, traditional and online.
“Libraries are under attack like never before,” Kahle said. “Our core values and library functions of preservation and access, equal opportunity, and universal education are threatened by book bans, budget cuts, burdensome licensing systems, and this damaging lawsuit. We hope that the appellate judges will support libraries and their longstanding and widespread library practices in the digital age. Now is the time to stand up for libraries.”
