Hachette v. Internet Archive

Last updated

Hachette Book Group, Inc. v. Internet Archive
USDCSDNY.svg
Court United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Full case nameHachette Book Group Inc., et al. v. Internet Archive, et al.
Court membership
Judge sitting John G. Koeltl

Hachette Book Group, Inc. v. Internet Archive, No. 20-cv-4160 (JGK), 2023 WL 2623787 (S.D.N.Y. 2023), is a case in which the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York determined that the Internet Archive, a registered library, committed copyright infringement by scanning and lending complete copies of books through controlled digital lending mechanisms. Stemming from the creation of the National Emergency Library (NEL) during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, publishing companies Hachette Book Group, Penguin Random House, HarperCollins, and Wiley alleged that the Internet Archive's Open Library and National Emergency Library facilitated copyright infringement. The case primarily concerns the fair use of controlled digital lending (CDL) of complete copies of certain books. The case does not concern the display of short passages, limited page views, search results, books out of copyright or out of print, or books without an ebook version currently for sale. [1]

Contents

On March 25, 2023, the court ruled on the case. [2] In August 2023, the parties reached a negotiated judgment, including a permanent injunction barring the Internet Archive from lending complete copies through CDL of some of the plaintiffs' books. [3] The Internet Archive appealed the decision but it was upheld by the appellate court in September 2024.

Background

The Internet Archive is a non-profit organization and legally a library; it is governed by copyright laws specific to libraries. It is based in San Francisco, California; the Archive maintains Open Library, a digital library index and lending system. As many of the works in the Internet Archive are under copyright, the Archive uses a controlled digital lending (CDL) system, a practice that relies upon digital rights management (DRM) to prevent unauthorized downloading or copying of copyrighted works. Open Library can generate digitized material (ebooks) from print copy. The Open Library CDL system ensures that only one digital copy is in use for each print copy or otherwise authorized ebook copy available.

On March 24, 2020, following shutdowns caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Internet Archive opened the National Emergency Library, removing the waitlists used in Open Library and expanding access to these books for all readers. Two months later, on June 1, the National Emergency Library (NEL) was met with a lawsuit from four book publishers. Two weeks after that, on June 16, the Internet Archive closed the NEL, [4] and the prior Open Library CDL system resumed after the 12 weeks of NEL usage.

Lawsuit

On June 1, 2020, Hachette Book Group and other publishers, including Penguin Random House, HarperCollins, and Wiley, filed a lawsuit against the Internet Archive for the National Emergency Library. [5] [6] The plaintiffs argued that the practice of CDL was illegal and not protected by the doctrine of fair use. [7] Furthermore, they argued that the Internet Archive was not abiding by CDL, as it had acknowledged that its partner libraries were not always withdrawing their physical copies from their shelves. [8]

Both sides filed motions for summary judgment. Judge John G. Koeltl ruled on March 24, 2023, saying the National Emergency Library concept was not fair use, thus the Archive infringed copyright by lending full ebook copies without the waitlist restriction. [9] The 127 publishers' books in the suit are also available as ebooks from the publishers. The Internet Archive said afterwards it would appeal this ruling, but otherwise would continue other digital book services which have been previously cleared under case law, such as books for reading-impaired users. [1] [10] [11]

Internet Archive press conference

Shortly before oral arguments, the Internet Archive held a press conference with comments from several people who implied that the issues in this case were much broader than the 127 books specifically named in the suit. [12] All presenters agreed that book publishers need to make money to pay their expenses including authors. The question is whether the National Emergency Library (NEL) actually harmed the publishers.

The Internet Archive's practice of scanning and lending books is central to Hachette v. Internet Archive. A Real Page-Turner.jpg
The Internet Archive's practice of scanning and lending books is central to Hachette v. Internet Archive.

Lila Bailey, Senior Policy Counsel for the Internet Archive, [13] noted that:

In the past, publishers stood against microfilm and photocopiers, crying harm. They said they would be harmed by interlibrary loan. They lobbied for decades against libraries being allowed to provide access for the blind and print disabled. They were wrong. It took years, but eventually, the law affirmed each of these things, and the public benefitted. With this lawsuit, publishers have repeated those same claims of massive harm from controlled digital lending. ... When asked under oath, their own executives admitted this. ... [They even] instructed their own 950 dollar per hour expert not to even try to measure economic harm. ... On the other hand, when we invited economists from Northeastern University and the University of Copenhagen to look at the sales and library lending data produced in this case, they came to a singular conclusion: The Internet Archive's digital lending had no measurable effect on the market whatsoever. [14]

Bailey's conclusion was supported by other speakers. [15] [16] [17]

Harvard Law School Professor Lawrence Lessig said that book publishers need to make a profit to serve the public, but the material available to the public should not be limited to what commercial enterprises find profitable. Netflix, for example, offers subscribers access to thousands of movies and television shows but routinely stops offering content for which the demand is too low. That doesn't happen with libraries. Without controlled digital lending, out-of-print books become essentially unavailable to the vast majority of humanity. "We need access to our past, not just the part of our past that is economically or commercially viable." [18]

Expert reports

An expert report filed with the court by Northeastern Econ Prof. Imke Reimers also reported that "sales in the first five years after an edition's publication account for up to 90% of lifetime sales." [19]

On the other side, University of Chicago computer science professor Ian Foster reported that the Internet Archive's actual CDL practices sometimes violated their claims, lending out more copies than they physically had. [20]

Final judgment

Judge John G. Koeltl held that the Internet Archive's scanning and lending of complete copies clearly constituted a prima facie case of copyright infringement and that the Internet Archive's fair use defense failed all four factors of the "fair use test". He rejected the Archive's argument that their scanning and lending of complete books was "transformative" in the sense of copyright law. [21]

While Judge Koeltl issued a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant, he did not assess damages. Instead, he directed the parties to brief the court on how they thought the case should be resolved in a way that comports with the judge's decision that the National Emergency Library was not fair use. [9]

Internet Archive founder Brewster Kahle declared their intention to appeal the ruling, [2] but did not do so while the parties continued to negotiate to try to agree on a procedure to determine the judgment to be entered in this case. The deadline for submitting such a procedure was extended several times; [22] the final extension was granted on July 28, extending the deadline to August 11, with Judge Keoltl writing, "No further extensions." [23]

On August 11, 2023, the parties reached a negotiated judgment. The agreement prescribes a permanent injunction preventing Internet Archive from loaning the plaintiffs' books in full through CDL, except those for which no e-book is currently available for sale from the publisher, [3] as well as an undisclosed payment to the plaintiffs. [24] [25] The agreement also preserves the right for the Internet Archive to appeal the previous ruling. [24] [25] As a result of the lawsuit, more than 500,000 books were made unavailable from loaning in full through CDL. The Internet Archive appealed to restore full CDL access to the affected books. [26]

Appeal

On September 11, 2023, the Internet Archive filed a notice which appealed the ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. [27] On December 15, 2023, the Internet Archive filed its opening brief in its appeal. [28] [29] Shortly afterwards, several other organizations filed friend of the court briefs. [30]

The oral argument phase of the appeal occurred on June 28, 2024. [31]

On September 4, 2024, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court rulings. The court stated "On the one hand, eBook licensing fees may impose a burden on libraries and reduce access to creative work. On the other hand, authors have a right to be compensated in connection with the copying and distribution of their original creations. Congress balanced these 'competing claims upon the public interest' in the Copyright Act. We must uphold that balance here." [32] [33]

Other responses

Association of American Publishers

The Association of American Publishers released a press statement that said, "In celebrating the opinion, we also thank the thousands of public libraries across the country that serve their communities everyday[ sic ] through lawful eBook licenses. We hope the opinion will prove educational to the defendant and anyone else who finds public laws inconvenient to their own interests." [34] The AAP has been critical of the Internet Archive for suggesting that libraries engage in the same practices that they do, arguing that only 13 public libraries in the US had cooperated with the Open Library. [35]

See also

Related Research Articles

The Association of American Publishers (AAP) is the national trade association of the American book publishing industry. AAP lobbies for book, journal and education publishers in the United States. AAP members include most of the major commercial publishers in the United States, as well as smaller and non-profit publishers, university presses and scholarly societies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Internet Archive</span> American nonprofit digital archive

The Internet Archive is an American nonprofit digital library website founded in 1996 by Brewster Kahle. It provides free access to collections of digitized materials including websites, software applications, music, audiovisual, and print materials. The Archive also advocates for a free and open Internet. As of September 5, 2024, the Internet Archive held more than 42.1 million print materials, 13 million videos, 1.2 million software programs, 14 million audio files, 5 million images, 272,660 concerts, and over 866 billion web pages in its Wayback Machine. Its mission is committing to provide "universal access to all knowledge".

In a series of legal disputes between SCO Group and Linux vendors and users, SCO alleged that its license agreements with IBM meant that source code IBM wrote and donated to be incorporated into Linux was added in violation of SCO's contractual rights. Members of the Linux community disagreed with SCO's claims; IBM, Novell, and Red Hat filed claims against SCO.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Authors Guild</span> American professional organization

The Authors Guild is America's oldest and largest professional organization for writers and provides advocacy on issues of free expression and copyright protection. Since its founding in 1912 as the Authors League of America, it has counted among its board members notable authors of fiction, nonfiction, and poetry, including numerous winners of the Nobel and Pulitzer Prizes and National Book Awards. It has over 9,000 members, who receive free legal advice and guidance on contracts with publishers as well as insurance services and assistance with subsidiary licensing and royalties.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Open Library</span> Online project for book data of the Internet Archive

Open Library is an online project intended to create "one web page for every book ever published". Created by Aaron Swartz, Brewster Kahle, Alexis Rossi, Anand Chitipothu, and Rebecca Malamud, Open Library is a project of the Internet Archive, a nonprofit organization. It has been funded in part by grants from the California State Library and the Kahle/Austin Foundation. Open Library provides online digital copies in multiple formats, created from images of many public domain, out-of-print, and in-print books.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Google Books</span> Service from Google

Google Books is a service from Google that searches the full text of books and magazines that Google has scanned, converted to text using optical character recognition (OCR), and stored in its digital database. Books are provided either by publishers and authors through the Google Books Partner Program, or by Google's library partners through the Library Project. Additionally, Google has partnered with a number of magazine publishers to digitize their archives.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyfraud</span> False copyright claims to public-domain content

A copyfraud is a false copyright claim by an individual or institution with respect to content that is in the public domain. Such claims are unlawful, at least under US and Australian copyright law, because material that is not copyrighted is free for all to use, modify and reproduce. Copyfraud also includes overreaching claims by publishers, museums and others, as where a legitimate copyright owner knowingly, or with constructive knowledge, claims rights beyond what the law allows.

<i>Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.</i> U.S. legal case on copyright originality

Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191, was a decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which ruled that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright in the United States because the copies lack originality. Even though accurate reproductions might require a great deal of skill, experience, and effort, the key element to determine whether a work is copyrightable under US law is originality.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Digital Millennium Copyright Act</span> United States copyright law

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a 1998 United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. Passed on October 12, 1998, by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of online services for copyright infringement by their users.

<i>Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc.</i> U.S. copyright law case, 2015

Authors Guild v. Google 804 F.3d 202 was a copyright case heard in federal court for the Southern District of New York, and then the Second Circuit Court of Appeals between 2005 and 2015. It concerned fair use in copyright law and the transformation of printed copyrighted books into an online searchable database through scanning and digitization. It centered on the legality of the Google Book Search Library Partner project that had been launched in 2003.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John G. Koeltl</span> American judge (born 1945)

John George Koeltl is a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan.

ebook Book-length publication in digital form

An ebook, also spelled as e-book or eBook, is a book publication made available in electronic form, consisting of text, images, or both, readable on the flat-panel display of computers or other electronic devices. Although sometimes defined as "an electronic version of a printed book", some e-books exist without a printed equivalent. E-books can be read on dedicated e-reader devices, also on any computer device that features a controllable viewing screen, including desktop computers, laptops, tablets and smartphones.

<i>Cambridge University Press v. Patton</i> American copyright case law

Cambridge University Press et al. v. Patton et al., 1:2008cv01425, was a case in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in which three publishers, Cambridge University Press, SAGE Publications, and Oxford University Press, initially filed suit in 2008 against Georgia State University for copyright infringement.

Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 (2010), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving copyright law. The Court held that failure to register a copyright under Section 411 (a) of the United States Copyright Act does not limit a Federal Court's jurisdiction over claims of infringement regarding unregistered works.

<i>Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust</i> American legal case

Authors Guild v. HathiTrust, 755 F.3d 87, is a United States copyright decision finding search and accessibility uses of digitized books to be fair use.

<i>Hubbard v Vosper</i>

Hubbard v Vosper, [1972] 2 Q.B. 84, is a leading English copyright law case on the defence of fair dealing. The Church of Scientology sued a former member, Cyril Vosper, for copyright infringement due to the publication of a book, The Mind Benders, criticizing Scientology. The Church of Scientology alleged that the books contained material copied from books and documents written by L. Ron Hubbard, as well as containing confidential information pertaining to Scientology courses. Vosper successfully defended the claim under the fair dealing doctrine, with the Court of Appeal deciding unanimously in his favour. The judgment given by Lord Denning clarified the scope and content of the fair dealing defence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">E-book lending</span>

E-book lending or elending is a practice in which access to already-purchased downloads or online reads of e-books is made available on a time-limited basis to others. It works around the digital rights management built into online-store-published e-books by limiting access to a purchased e-book file to the borrower, resulting in loss of access to the file by the purchaser for the duration of the borrowing period.

Google has been involved in multiple lawsuits over issues such as privacy, advertising, intellectual property and various Google services such as Google Books and YouTube. The company's legal department expanded from one to nearly 100 lawyers in the first five years of business, and by 2014 had grown to around 400 lawyers. Google's Chief Legal Officer is Senior Vice President of Corporate Development David Drummond.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Controlled digital lending</span> Digital library lending model

Controlled digital lending (CDL) is a model by which libraries digitize materials in their collection and make them available for lending. It is based on interpretations of the United States copyright principles of fair use and copyright exhaustion.

Oppenheim + Zebrak is a United States law firm specializing in copyright infringement and anti-piracy. The firm was founded in 2011 by Matt Oppenheim and Scott Zebrak and is based in Tenleytown, Washington, DC.

References

  1. 1 2 Peters, Jay; Hollister, Sean (March 24, 2023). "The Internet Archive has lost its first fight to scan and lend e-books like a library". The Verge . Archived from the original on March 25, 2023. Retrieved March 24, 2023.
  2. 1 2 Corbett, Jessica (March 25, 2023). "Internet Archive to Appeal 'Chilling' Federal Ruling Against Digital Books". Common Dreams.
  3. 1 2 Rose, Meredith Filak (August 21, 2023). "Some Unexpected Sanity in the Hachette v. Internet Archive Lawsuit". Public Knowledge. Retrieved November 12, 2023.
  4. ↑ Brooke, Rachel (March 20, 2023). "Judge Hears Oral Arguments in Hachette Book Group v. Internet Archive". Authors Alliance. Archived from the original on March 23, 2023. Retrieved March 25, 2023.
  5. ↑ Harris, Elizabeth (June 1, 2020). "Publishers Sue Internet Archive Over Free E-Books". The New York Times . Archived from the original on June 12, 2020. Retrieved March 24, 2023.
  6. ↑ "Hachette v. Internet Archive". Electronic Frontier Foundation. October 9, 2020. Archived from the original on March 25, 2023. Retrieved March 25, 2023.
  7. ↑ Robertson, Adi (March 20, 2023). "The Internet Archive is defending its digital library in court today". The Verge. Archived from the original on March 25, 2023. Retrieved March 25, 2023.
  8. ↑ Albanese, Andrew (September 6, 2022). "NEXT JOB Publishers, Internet Archive Trade Reply Briefs in Book Scanning Case". Publishers Weekly. Retrieved November 12, 2023.
  9. 1 2 "Opinion" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on March 30, 2023.
  10. ↑ Hernandez, Joe (March 26, 2023). "A judge sided with publishers in a lawsuit over the Internet Archive's online library". NPR. Archived from the original on March 27, 2023. Retrieved March 27, 2023.
  11. ↑ Brittain, Blake (March 20, 2023). "Internet Archive faces skeptical judge in publishers' copyright lawsuit". Reuters. Archived from the original on March 25, 2023. Retrieved March 25, 2023.
  12. ↑ Chris Freeland, ed. (March 20, 2023). "Internet Archive Press Conference: March 20, 2023". Internet Archive . Wikidata   Q117825695.
  13. ↑ Lila Bailey, Wikidata   Q117745845
  14. ↑ Lila Bailey (March 20, 2023). "Press conference statement: Lila Bailey, Internet Archive". Internet Archive Press Conference: March 20, 2023. Wikidata   Q117745831.
  15. ↑ Rasmus Jørgensen (February 25, 2022), Expert report of Rasmus Jørgensen, PhD, Wikidata   Q117757229
  16. ↑ Rasmus Jørgensen (May 27, 2022), Reply expert report of Rasmus Jørgensen, PhD, Wikidata   Q117756653
  17. ↑ Imke Reimers (February 25, 2022), Expert report of Imke Reimers, Ph.D., Wikidata   Q117749346
  18. ↑ "Press conference statement: Lawrence Lessig, Harvard Law". Internet Archive Press Conference: March 20, 2023. March 20, 2023. Wikidata   Q117825676.
  19. ↑ Imke Reimers (February 25, 2022), Expert report of Imke Reimers, Ph.D., Wikidata   Q117749346
  20. ↑ Ian T. Foster (March 31, 2022), Supplemental expert report of Prof. Ian Foster, p. 122, Wikidata   Q117749404
  21. ↑ Albanese, Andrew (March 25, 2023). "In a Swift Decision, Judge Eviscerates Internet Archive's Scanning and Lending Program". Publishers Weekly. Retrieved November 12, 2023.
  22. ↑ A tutorial on how to find documents in cases in US federal courts, illustrated with this case is available at Wikiversity:Researching US federal court documents. The most recent extension to that deadline as of this writing is available in John G. Koeltl (April 26, 2023), ORDER granting 197 Letter Motion for Extension of Time. (PDF), United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Wikidata   Q118140236
  23. ↑ John G. Koeltl (July 28, 2023), Final extension of deadline in Hachette v. Internet Archive (PDF), Wikidata   Q121133396
  24. 1 2 Freeland, Chris (August 17, 2023). "What the Hachette v. Internet Archive Decision Means for Our Library". Internet Archive Blogs. Internet Archive. Retrieved January 4, 2024.
  25. 1 2 "Publishers and Internet Archive Submit Negotiated Judgment with Permanent Injunction to District Court in Hachette Book Group, et al, v. Internet Archive". publishers.org. Association of American Publishers. August 11, 2023. Retrieved August 15, 2023.
  26. ↑ "Why are so many books listed as "Borrow Unavailable" at the Internet Archive". Internet Archive Help Page. March 17, 2024. Retrieved June 13, 2024.
  27. ↑ Robertson, Adi (September 11, 2023). "Internet Archive appeals loss in library ebook lawsuit". The Verge . Retrieved September 13, 2023.
  28. ↑ Van der Sar, Ernesto (December 18, 2023). "Internet Archive: Digital Lending is Fair Use, Not Copyright Infringement". TorrentFreak . Archived from the original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved December 19, 2023.
  29. ↑ "Brief for Defendant-Appellant Internet Archive" (PDF). The Internet Archive . December 15, 2023 – via TorrentFreak.
  30. ↑ Bailey, Lila (December 29, 2023). "Friend of the Court Briefs Filed in Internet Archive's Appeal". The Internet Archive . Retrieved January 4, 2024.
  31. ↑ Hachette Book Group, Inc. v. Internet Archive Appeal Oral Argument Second Circuit. United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Audio). June 28, 2024 – via Internet Archive.
  32. ↑ https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/4/24235958/internet-archive-loses-appeal-ebook-lending
  33. ↑ https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca2.60988/gov.uscourts.ca2.60988.306.1.pdf
  34. ↑ "Publishers Prevail in Summary Judgement Against Internet Archive for Copyright Infringement". Association of American Publishers. March 24, 2023. Retrieved November 6, 2023.
  35. ↑ Pallante, Maria A. (March 31, 2023). "Reflections from the Association of American Publishers on Hachette Book Group v. Internet Archive: An Affirmation of Publishing" (PDF). Association of American Publishers. Retrieved November 6, 2023.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.