Internet Archive’s e-book lending is not fair use, appeals court rules

🌈 Abstract

The article discusses the Internet Archive's loss in an appeal against book publishers who sued to block the Open Libraries Project from lending digital scans of books for free online. The court ruled that the Internet Archive's digital lending was not transformative fair use and harmed the publishers' market for e-books.

🙋 Q&A

[01] The Court's Ruling

1. What was the key argument made by the Internet Archive in its defense?

• The Internet Archive argued that its controlled digital lending, which allows only one person to borrow each scanned e-book at a time, was a transformative fair use that worked like a traditional library and did not violate copyright law.

2. Why did the court reject the Internet Archive's argument?

• The court concluded that the Internet Archive's use of publishers' books was not transformative because the digital copies did not "provide criticism, commentary, or information about the originals" or alter the original books to add "something new."
• The court emphasized that the Internet Archive's digital books served the same exact purpose as the originals: making authors' works available to read.

3. What was the outcome of the court's ruling?

• The appeals court ruling affirmed the lower court's decision, which permanently barred the Internet Archive from distributing not just the works in the suit, but all books "available for electronic licensing."

[02] Impact on Publishers and Authors

1. How did the publishers and their representatives respond to the court's decision?

• The Association of American Publishers, the trade organization behind the lawsuit, celebrated the ruling, stating that the court upheld "the rights of authors and publishers to license and be compensated for their books and other creative works."
• The publishers' lead attorneys said the court's decision "correctly rejected Internet Archive's arguments that mass copyright infringement can be justified" and that the "unequivocal decision will serve as a clear warning to future infringers."

2. What were the key points made by the court regarding the impact on publishers and authors?

• The court agreed with the publishers' assessment that the Internet Archive's digital lending was harming their market for e-books, even though the publishers did not provide empirical data to support this.
• The court stated that the Internet Archive's digital books "compete directly with Publishers' e-books" and would deprive authors of revenue if left unchecked.

[03] The Internet Archive's Response

1. How did the Internet Archive respond to the court's decision?

• The Internet Archive's director of library services, Chris Freeland, expressed disappointment in the court's opinion and stated that the organization will continue to defend the rights of libraries to own, lend, and preserve books.

2. What was the Internet Archive's argument regarding its funding and profitability?

• The court disagreed with the publishers' claims that the Internet Archive was profiting off e-book lending, stating that the Internet Archive "does not profit directly from its Free Digital Library" and that it would be "misleading" to characterize it as such.