The Internet Archive (IA) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to preserving digital history for future generations.
Digital Libraries are passionate supporters of a free and open Internet and began meticulously archiving the web more than a quarter of a century ago.
In addition to its web archives, IA also operates a library that offers a wide collection of digital media, including books. Staying true to centuries-old library concepts, IA patrons can also borrow books that are scanned and digitized in-house.
Publisher vs. Internet Archive
The self-scanning service provided by the Internet Archive (IA) is different from the licensing agreements that other libraries have. Not all publishers were happy with IA’s approach, which resulted in a major legal battle two years ago.
Publishers Hachette, HarperCollins, John Wiley, and Penguin Random House have filed suit alleging copyright infringement over IA’s controlled digital lending (CDL) business. Earlier this year, a New York federal court concluded that the library was indeed liable for copyright infringement.
The court’s decision effectively puts an end to IA’s self-scanning library, at least for the books of the publishers suing them. But the IA could not let this go unchallenged, and in December the nonprofit filed opening briefs with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals seeking to overturn the ruling.
High profile support
The importance of this legal battle is evident from the numerous court briefs filed by third parties. Previously, the IA received support from copyright scholars, the Authors Alliance, and others.
A few days ago, a new amicus brief was filed in the Court of Appeals, this time in favor of the publishers who filed their responses last week. Prominent individuals and organizations have asked the Court of Appeals not to overturn district court rulings in several cases, arguing that they seriously harm the interests of copyright owners.
The overview includes positions in industry organizations such as the MPA, RIAA, IFPI, Copyright Alliance, Authors Guild, and various writers’ unions. Legal scholars, professors, and former government officials also agreed.
RIAA, MPA, etc.
The RIAA and MPA filed amicus briefs along with the NMPA and News Media Alliance. These industry groups draw parallels between the impact Napster and BitTorrent had on music and movie sales and the threat posed today by IA’s self-scanning libraries.
“Digital piracy is having a significant economic impact on these industries and, in turn, on their ability to invest in new creative works and the artists who produce them.” The Internet Archive’s Fair Use Theory represents an equally serious threat.”
Industry groups are concerned that if the Internet Archive is allowed to digitize and lend books, it could set a precedent for other forms of media. For example, if services could rent out music, movies, and news media to the general public, these industries could face similar challenges.
“Considering the Internet Archive’s mass reproduction and distribution program as fair use arguably means that the Internet Archive itself, as well as other online platforms, distribute copyrighted works of all kinds in digital format.” “It will encourage people to freely ‘loan’ it to the public,” they wrote.
“It would be devastating to the digital marketplaces that the music, film and television, news, and other similar industries depend on to create and distribute their work for profit. That would undermine the incentive to create new copyrighted works.” The law exists to protect. ”
According to Amici, there is nothing fair about IA’s digital library. Rather, they consider it “blatant copyright infringement.”
Copyright expert, professor, lawmaker
A second court brief was filed by more than a dozen professors and scholars of copyright and intellectual property law. They stressed that IA practices should not be considered “transformative” fair use, arguing that libraries are offering “substitutes” for books legally offered by publishers.
This is a departure from current case law, including the Google Books case, in which Google’s extensive use of copyrighted books was considered fair use.
“The IA’s use of copyrighted books is thus the antithesis of the copying that has proven transformative in the United States. Google Books and Hattie Trust. IA does not provide subscribers with a searchable database that “extends their utility.”What that do “What is being offered is access to the full text book as a clearly competitive alternative to the version licensed by the book publisher,” the legal scholars wrote.
Another court brief adds stronger support for the publisher. They include former judges and 20 other government officials and members of Congress, including former House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith and former House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatt.
The brief also rejects the Internet Archive’s fair use claims and instead positions the library as a threat.
“IA does not advance the public interest, but rather undermines the incentive to create and distribute books that benefit society. Therefore, the conduct is clearly not protected by fair use,” they wrote. It is written in the preparation document.
IA and AI
The final court brief we would like to highlight comes from an extensive collection from international and regional trade associations outside the United States. These include the International Publishers Association, the International Video Federation, and the Canadian Publishers Association.
These groups also reject fair use claims. They argue that in addition to directly competing with the interests of publishers, IA libraries also pose an indirect “artificial intelligence” threat, since digitized books can be used as training materials for AI. It is emphasized that there is.
“The Internet Archive is the obvious source of high-quality works for AI training, as these works are professionally edited and improved by publishers. As you type, you will see a number of links to software tools that remove Internet Archive’s DRM technology, along with instructions on how to use them.
“Amici is concerned that the Internet Archive’s CDL collection is already being used as an AI training tool, even if AI training is ultimately determined not to be a fair use by a U.S. court.” the international industry group added.
In short, book publishers have plenty of outside support for their legal battles. However, it remains to be seen whether any of these courts, including those upholding the IA, will influence the final outcome of the appeal.
—
Below is a summary of court briefs filed over the past few days, all in support of the publisher.
– RIAA, MPA, NMPA, News Media Alliance.
– Former government official, former judge, intellectual property scholar.
– Copyright Alliance.
– Various organizations representing the interests of writers and other creators.
– Professor and scholar of copyright and intellectual property law.
– International and regional trade associations.
