The legal battle between the Internet Archive (IA) and major publishing houses reached a significant point. The lawsuit‚ initiated in June 2020‚ centered on the IA’s practice of Controlled Digital Lending (CDL)‚ specifically concerning the lending of complete digital copies of copyrighted books.
The publishers argued that IA’s CDL infringed on their copyrights‚ asserting they held sole rights for distributing these works. They labeled the IA’s online lending a “pirate site.” The publishers offer ebook licenses with varying terms‚ which the IA never acquired.
A district court initially ruled in favor of the publishers in March 2023‚ finding that IA had infringed copyright by creating digital copies and making them available. The court rejected IA’s claim that CDL was protected under fair use. The ruling clarified that making full-text copyrighted books available for free‚ without permission‚ is copyright infringement;
The Core Issues
- Controlled Digital Lending (CDL)⁚ The practice of lending digital copies of physical books‚ maintaining a one-to-one owned-to-loaned ratio.
- Copyright Infringement⁚ Publishers argued IA’s CDL was illegal and not protected by fair use;
- National Emergency Library⁚ A temporary initiative by IA‚ which temporarily lifted lending restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The lawsuit particularly involved the IA’s collection of over 3.6 million potentially copyrighted works. The court’s decision made it clear that unrestricted access to full-text copyrighted books is a violation. This outcome is a setback for digital libraries‚ which argue that IA’s work is vital for public access to knowledge.
The ruling has financial consequences‚ including compensation for the publishers’ legal fees. Despite this‚ the IA maintains it will continue to grow its collection and serve its patrons. The IA was also ordered to remove commercially available books from its lending program‚ though they can still preserve and digitize books and offer access through interlibrary loan and accessible formats for individuals with disabilities.
The Impact
- Loss of Access⁚ Significant reduction in public access to books‚ particularly for those without institutional affiliations or nearby libraries.
- Other Services⁚ The injunction does not impact other IA services‚ like preservation digitization‚ interlibrary loan‚ or accessibility services.
- Future of Digital Libraries⁚ This case raises concerns about the future development of digital libraries nationwide.
The IA plans to appeal the ruling. This case highlights the tension between copyright and the public interest. Many support IA’s mission‚ while others see it as a copyright infringer. Despite the setbacks‚ the IA asserts that its library remains strong and it is committed to its patrons.
This court case only affects the IA’s book lending program. The IA may still digitize books for preservation and make accessible formats for print disabled people. The organization may also continue to display short portions of books as is consistent with fair use‚ such as Wikipedia references.
The injunction does not affect lending of out-of-print books‚ and millions of public domain texts will remain available without restriction.
The IA has come to an agreement with the Association of American Publishers (AAP)‚ who will not support further legal action against the IA for controlled digital lending if the IA follows the same takedown procedures for any AAP-member publisher.
This case could mark a shift in how digital libraries operate and how they interact with copyright laws. It underscores the importance of balancing accessibility with the rights of copyright holders.
