Court nixes Internet Archive library

RE: Internet Archive lawsuit In most popular level discussion, specific copyright policy questions tend to be undercontextualized; we don’t talk about the broader political economy that copyright policy is embedded in, and that means that we try to make copyright law itself do all the work as a sort of unspoken intellectual proxy for bigger political economy questions without directly examining how well our assumptions match up with lived experiences. In my view, this is a reason people get misled into supporting positions that don't actually reflect their values, because they imagine they're sticking it to the man, somehow. The simple remedy, of course, is talking to diverse workers and groups that represent them. It's been very helpful for me to understand, for example that The Authors Guild has been one of the strongest and most effective voices in curbing consolidation in publishing and fighting for fair terms for authors, while also understanding that AG has firmly supported the publishers' suit against IA. The same is true of National Writers Union, who note that IA and their allies have repeatedly refused dialogue over these issues and denied writers a seat at the table. They write: “If we say, ‘Stop! You are hurting us,’ it’s the height of condescension to respond by telling us that you know better than we do whether we are being harmed, or that what you are doing to us is really for our own good.” Much of the most important work that needs to be done is badly underresourced--that includes work done by authors, librarians, and archivists. This is a precarious time for all of us invested in free expression, cultural preservation, and cultural creation. Astra Taylor and Leah Hunt Hendrix have a new book about Solidarity and I think that concept offers a really useful way forward. What does it look like to practice solidarity in copyright policy discussions??How would it alter the tenor of the conversation and the?practical trajectory? I hope that among other things it would be depolarizing and facilitate some pragmatism and collaboration. (Short version: second circuit got this right: this was not a close call. Fair use and the commons are too important to be left to Brewster Kahle and Sam Altman to define).

?? Prediction ?? As the lawsuit against the Internet Archive over its emergency ebook lending practices ends in a victory for publishers, we can anticipate the following developments in the digital publishing landscape: 1. Publishers may become more vigilant in protecting their intellectual property rights, leading to tighter restrictions on digital lending platforms. 2. The focus on copyright and licensing agreements will intensify, prompting a potential shift in how ebook lending is regulated and managed. 3. Digital libraries and ebook providers may need to reevaluate their strategies to ensure compliance with copyright laws while still serving the public interest. Let's stay tuned for how this legal decision will shape the future of ebook lending and accessibility for readers worldwide. #DigitalPublishing #EbookLending #CopyrightLaws #FutureTrends

The Internet Archive has lost its appeal in a fight to lend out scanned ebooks without the authorization of publishers. This decision may have a drastic (and, I believe, negative) impact on the future of internet.

One for the #copyright lovers! CDL ("controlled digital lending") is dead. In a lawsuit between Hachette et al and Internet Archive, the Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled in favor of the publishers. The judges reject Internet Archive's "controlled digital lending" theory and find that all four fair use factors favor publishers.

The 2d Circuit just affirmed the District Court's finding of infringement in the Hachette v. Internet Archive case. Congratulations to Association of American Publishers (AAP) as well as all of the lawyers and plaintiffs (including my former employer Wiley). TL;DR provided by the 2d Circuit: "IA asks this Court to bless the large scale copying and distribution of copyrighted books without permission from or payment to the Publishers or authors. Such a holding would allow for widescale copying that deprives creators of compensation and diminishes the incentive to produce new works. This may be what IA and its amici prefer, but it is not an approach that the Copyright Act permits." I was moved by the following quote from author Sandra Cisneros, as was the Court: "I worked hard to earn the financial security that I now have and which enables me to earn a living from my pen without fear of poverty.... When I went on the Internet Archive’s website and saw that scans of my books were being distributed to anybody who wanted them for free―without my permission or any payment―I was appalled. I found the experience so viscerally upsetting that I could not stay on the website for long. It was like I had gone to a pawn shop and seen my stolen possessions on sale." Do you think this may have relevance wrt using works without consent in training LLMs? I do.

Fair Use decision involving non-profit Internet Archive and book publishers is affirmed today by the Second Circuit. In short, it is not fair use for a non-profit to scan copyright-protected print books in their entirety and distribute those digital copies online in full and for free under their controlled digital lending program without authorization from the relevant copyright owners. ?? Fair use allows use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holder under certain circumstances. This is a defense to copyright infringement. Parties filing briefs to support Internet Archive to the Second Circuit included: ? Copyright Scholars, including Jonathan Askin, Patricia Aufderheide, Dr. Patrick Goold, Stacey M. Lantagne, Sari Mazzurco, Sunoo Park, Aaron Perzanowski, Blake E. Reid, Jason Schultz, Pamela Samuelson, Jessica Silbey, Patricia Aufderheide, Mark Bartholomew, Michael A. Carrier, Zachary Catanzaro, Bryan H. Choi, Christine Haight Farley, Jim Gibson, Patrick Goold, James Grimmelmann, Laura A. Heymann, Michael Karanicolas, Edward Lee, Yvette Joy Liebesman, Glynn S. Lunney, Jr., Mark P. McKenna, Amanda Reid, and Rebecca Tushnet ? Library and information scholars and historians ? Center for Democracy & Technology, Library Freedom Project, and Public Knowledge ? Authors Alliance, Inc. ? eBook Study Group, Library Futures Project, The EveryLibrary Institute, ReadersFirst, The Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition, Association of Southeastern Research Libraries, Boston Library Consortium, Partnership for Academic Library Collaboration & Innovation, Urban Librarians Unite, and 218 Librarians ? Wikimedia Foundation, Creative Commons, and Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation Parties filing briefs to support the publishers to the Second Circuit included: ? International Publishers Association, Federation of European Publishers, International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers, International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers, International Federation of Film Producers Associations, International Video Federation, IFPI, Association of Canadian Publishers, Brazilian Book Chamber, Sindicato Nacional dos Editores de Livros, and Syndicat national de l’édition ? Recording Industry Association of America, National Music Publishers’ Association, Motion Picture Association, Inc., and News/Media Alliance ? Former Government Officials, Former Judges, and IP Scholars ? Copyright Alliance ? Authors Guild, Inc., American Photographic Artists,?American Society for Collective Rights Licensing, American Society of Media Photographers, Inc. Association of American Literary Agents, National Press Photographers Association, National Writers Union, North American Nature Photography Association, Romance Writers of America and others Hachette Book Group, Inc. et al v. Internet Archive?

Thanks, Second Circuit: "[Internet Archive] asks this Court to bless the large scale copying and distribution of copyrighted books without permission from or payment to the Publishers or authors. Such a holding would allow for widescale copying that deprives creators of compensation and diminishes the incentive to produce new works. This may be what IA and its amici prefer, but it is not an approach that the Copyright Act permits."

#Copyright decision alert! ?? The Second Circuit affirmed the SDNY's finding that Internet Archive's wholesale copying of books for its "digital lending" platform was not #fairuse. Of most interest, as usual, is the first-factor "transformativeness" analysis; the discussion was extensive and worth a read, but in short, the court concluded: "because IA’s Free Digital Library primarily supplants the original Works without adding meaningfully new or different features that avoid unduly impinging on Publishers’ rights to prepare derivative works, its use of the Works is not transformative." chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://lnkd.in/gCtUXkmJ