Four months after the disappointing decision on summary judgment in Hachette v. Internet Archive, a number of papers were filed today in the district court, and then the judge is expected to make his final judgment. We expect that, at least while the appeal is pending, there will be changes to our lending program, but the full scope of those changes is a question pending with the district court. We will provide an update on those changes once the district court decision is final.
Our fight is far from over—We remain steadfast in our belief that libraries should be able to own, preserve, and lend digital books outside of the confines of temporary licensed access. We believe that the judge made errors of law and fact in the decision, and we will appeal.
Statement from Internet Archive founder, Brewster Kahle:
“Libraries are under attack at unprecedented scale today, from book bans to defunding to overzealous lawsuits like the one brought against our library. These efforts are cutting off the public’s access to truth at a key time in our democracy. We must have strong libraries, which is why we are appealing this decision.”
How to Take Action:
Stand up for libraries
Stand up for the digital rights of all libraries! Join the Battle for Libraries: https://www.battleforlibraries.com/
Support the Internet Archive
Support the Internet Archive to continue fighting for libraries in court!
Stay connected
Sign up for the Empowering Libraries newsletter for ongoing updates about the lawsuit and our library.
This is so depressing. Please remember to vote, so we can hopefully someday have a court system that cannot be bought and sold like this.
Can IA please clarify a point regarding Hachette v. Internet Archive?
My understanding is that the lawsuit was filed by:
John Wiley & Sons
Hachette Book Group
HarperCollins
and Penguin Random House
If I understand correctly, the latter three firms belong to the so-called “big five” publishing houses. Does this leave Macmillan and Simon & Schuster as the only two of the big five publishing houses that book-buying IA supporters can hand their money to without supporting corporate chicanery?
Don’t forget there’s the recent lawsuit with music labels that seriously needs to be addressed.
As well, Simon & Schuster was recently bought by private equity vampires KKR.
The only books this is inevitable judgment is going to actually affect are those otherwise forgotten books around niche subjects that literally aren’t available anywhere else anymore. All the books they actually could profit from are and will be available from hundreds of sources around the net, without any of the “controlled lending” nonsense.
I suspect that most of the books being looked at by scholars and researchers here are these very “old” non-digitized works. In my view, so what if you’re out of luck now in getting an online copy of Grapes of Wrath on the IA. That’s not what I use it for. Who does?
I don’t think this (judge modified) consent decree hurts the IA at all. It’s much better news than his original opinion last spring.
The only books this is inevitable judgment is going to actually affect are those otherwise forgotten books around niche subjects that literally aren’t available anywhere else anymore. All the books they actually could profit from are and will be available from hundreds of sources around the net, without any of the “controlled lending” nonsense.
Are you guys gonna talk about or respond to the music label lawsuit happening? I fear this one could really damage your business and destroy years of history all at once. Please don’t let it all go down the drain.
If the publisher didn’t want to transfer the work why do they offer publications for a set price? They didn’t give it away for free…Nor, has anyone forced them to decide to only sell digital or physical copies, yet, they’ll happily ‘click-wrap’ contractual terms without a meeting of the minds & are angry they can’t control how people use the property they’ve paid to own, like a Broadcast station cursing technological advancements of Video/Betamax recorders or interfacing with a set top box which isn’t associated with a monthly ‘service’ charge.
We have a difficult road ahead, of course, this court does not mean the end of our road and efforts.
God gives his toughest battles to his strongest soldiers.
These companies are a disgrace, maybe it would be better to move the servers to Argentina.
You are on the right side of history.
Was it because of these difficulties that you removed a set of valences from the site, and excluded blind people from the list of people who can freely access your website?
Never give up, Archive! (Library of Alexandria 2.0)
Without the Archive, it would an unimaginable loss for the world. I never took it for granted. I am always thankful for it.
Thank you for this wonderful library.
Hi Brewster,
you are a hero.
Regards.
Why could you not move to a more Google Books/Hathi like approach where rather than controlled lending you provide ‘snippet’ views based on searches, and appropriate “fair use” limits on views?
Hope the appeal finally sets limits on what publishers can claim they can do.
I think the judge’s ruling in the consent decree is actually GREAT news for the IA.
He’s still allowing non-digitized copyrighted materials to be made available, which is really what most of us go here for anyway. Very little of what we want is even interested in by these publishers now — like old orphan and out-of-print works, or old journals and magazines still in copyright.
The judge must have later realized that some of the good things being said about the IA regarding orphan works etc were valid. He could have clamped down on everything but he didn’t.
It’s baffling why no one seems to be noticing this good part of the news — the press makes it sound like this is curtains for the IA.