Last week saw a massive outpouring of support for the Internet Archive and our legal positions from prominent library and nonprofit organizations, as well as hundreds of librarians and academics, who filed amicus (“friend of the court”) briefs in the Hachette v. Internet Archive Second Circuit appeal. Read on to learn why they believe our appeal should succeed.
American Library Association and Association of Research Libraries. This brief supports the Internet Archive’s position that our use of Controlled Digital Lending is a nonprofit educational use rather than a “commercial” one, and urges the Court to consider the broader impact its decision will have on a host of everyday library practices that rely on fair use. “Libraries rely on fair use at every step in a typical digital preservation workflow, from cataloging to access.” Read the full brief here.
Authors Alliance. This brief voices the strong support of authors for the Internet Archive and controlled digital lending. “Authors want and need libraries to purchase their books, but the copyright system has never required libraries to pay for those books again and again in order to provide readers with access in formats relevant to them in light of evolving technology.” Read the full brief here.
Center for Democracy & Technology, Library Freedom Project, and Public Knowledge. This brief focuses on the significant privacy issues at play in this case. “Readers should not have to choose to either forfeit their privacy or forgo digital access to information; nor should libraries be forced to impose this choice on readers. CDL provides an ecosystem where all people, including those with mobility limitations and print disabilities, can pursue knowledge in a privacy-protective manner.” Read the full brief here.
Copia Institute. This brief raises the important First Amendment considerations embodied in fair use, arguing that the district court decision rejecting Internet Archive’s fair use defense put copyright law in conflict with the Constitution. “Copyright law should want to promote access to works, because it does nothing to promote progress if the law incentives the creation of works that no one can actually enjoy. In this case, enabling the books that were already lawfully readable to be read is what copyright law should instead be glad for the Internet Archive to do.” Read the full brief here.
Copyright Scholars. In this brief, 11 prominent copyright scholars argue forcefully for the Second Circuit to overturn the district court’s decision. “By eliminating the ability of libraries to use CDL as a means of ensuring long-term affordable digital access to their collections, publishers threaten the core functions of the library—acquiring, preserving, and sharing information. Avoiding those public harms urges a finding of fair use.” Read the full brief here.
eBook Study Group, Library Futures Project, EveryLibrary Institute, ReadersFirst, SPARC, ASERL, BLC, PALCI, Urban Libraries Unite and 218 individual librarians. This brief explains the history and development of CDL, how deeply embedded the practice is today, and urges the appellate Court not to disrupt this long-standing and widespread practice. “CDL has become a critical part of library practice in the United States because it provides a reasonable way to offer digital access to libraries’ legally acquired collections. Over 100 libraries across the United States rely on a CDL program to distribute their collections, particularly for out-of-print works, reserves, or for works that are less frequently circulated.” Read the full brief here.
HathiTrust. Digital Library consortium HathiTrust cautions the appellate court not to follow the district court’s ruling that IA’s use was “commercial” or harmed the publishers market, and warns against a broad ruling that could sweep in many other digital library practices. “[The district court’] ruling has been widely perceived by libraries as a threat to lending of digital copies in general, or even “part of a broader historical push to make libraries obsolete.” Neither the record in this case nor the applicable law supports such a result.” Read the full brief here.
Intellectual Property Law Professors. This brief focuses entirely on the district court’s deeply problematic ruling the the Internet Archive’s controlled digital lending program is “commercial.” “While there are many commercial fair uses, the Internet Archive’s digital lending program falls on the specially favored nonprofit, noncommercial side. The District Court therefore erred in interpreting “commercial” so broadly as to encompass the Internet Archive’s nonprofit lending.” Read the full brief here.
Kevin L. Smith and William M Cross. In this brief, two library and information scholars and historians with deep expertise regarding libraries and archives explain that “CDL is just one of numerous innovations in library services that have been developed and implemented through many decades and can be adapted to legal requirements. This case presents an opportunity for the Court to make clear that libraries, acting within the law, have the imperative to deploy technologies and build innovative services in furtherance of broad access to information.” Read the full brief here.
Law Library Directors, Professors and Academics. Over 50 law library directors, professors, librarians, and graduate students signed onto this brief arguing that the district court did not appropriately consider the public benefits of CDL. “Neither the public nor authors, both of whom are the intended beneficiaries of copyright, benefit from libraries spending public or community funds on the same content repeatedly instead of acquiring new content. The logical consequence is that the public has access to fewer authors and works, fewer authors get wide exposure, and fewer works are preserved for future generations.” Read the full brief here.
Wikipedia, Creative Commons, and Project Gutenberg. Three prominent open knowledge organizations filed this brief focusing on the damage the lower court ruling could do to all nonprofit uses of in-copyright material. “The district court’s decision contains factual and legal errors that, if endorsed by this Court, could threaten the ability of all nonprofits to make fair use of copyrighted material.” Read the full brief here.
Kahle need prison
he won’t stop lusting after the inappropriate
first we had amigo, and then mi ami, and now we have amicus
MY. PROPERTY. DOES. NOT. BELONG. TO. YOU.
Screw you. You obviously think copyright = right to profit, so only the paying generation can enjoy creative works and non-moneymaking works can be locked in a safe until the copyrights expire so that the descendants of the paying generation can’t enjoy those works.
IA should remove all of your comments, after all you’re a troll.
I am against descendants of copyright, though.
You are against reading comprehension.
one day youll die. the internet archive will be there. why would you burn down another library of alexandria?
I’m retiring from the Archive message boards. I. KNOW. ALL. RIGHT.
hopefully Kahle loses, that’s all $14…
;oeifjlkdlfj;dkfj
You are the greatest Internet poster!!!
Archive.org blocked in UK. A different topic, but one you might like to address:
Mobile ISPs in the UK are blocking access to the I.A. library and Wayback Machine, which I use a lot as an editor at Wikipedia and as a writer. May be parental filters related to the Online Safety Act 2023. I’m with Three and the only way to get the filter lifted is to provide credit card (not debit card) details, which I don’t have, or visit the relevant phone shop, and there are none near where I live. Or I can use a VPN in Opera or Avast secure browser (and probably others).
[quote]
hopefully Kahle loses
[/quote]
There is a lot more at stake here than one man winning or losing.
In essence, the publishers are attempting to write a new set of rules when it comes to the lending of books in order to change the idea of what buying a book means. The publishers are trying to make it so that anyone who buys a book isn’t really buying that book, but rather, the right to use that book for a limited time only.
After that time elapses, the purchaser is faced with having to pay for it all over again.
Take a look at the books on the shelves of your local library. Imagine those books dissolving into nothingness in two years. Or one year. Or six months. Imagine the library having to buy the same books over and over again because the courts have decreed that buying a book does not entitle the owner to lend the book out to one person at a time à la CDL .
I believe IA filed the appeal because CDL hinges on the centuries-old model of a library being able to loan out a book to one patron at a time for as long as it wishes vs. the publishers selling a temporary license to use a book that expires in a few years (or a few months).
The amicus briefs were written by organisations that understand IA is trying maintain the rights of libraries and archives to keep on doing what they’ve been doing for decades. The list of groups that have taken the time and trouble to weigh in on IA’s side is quite impressive and should give any onlooker a good idea of what is at stake in this battle.
I will publish inimicus briefs soon, A.D. in the his-house, until then I think this site needs a Buy Button. But whom would want to own digital copies, yuck?
her last book sold 1 copy and was checked out 2 million times
-Kate Libby
Bros,
join me at Archive.org this coming year, my first read is Proudhon. Let us begin an entire 2024 at the digital checking the English language site to make sure it’s good place.
TM
2024 rentals for me this year
2024 times i didn’t pay coming up
2024 steps closer to my own personal end-game
2024 instances a man held out the crown of France and I picked it up
2024 followed by 6 zeroes $2,024,000,000 = endgame
thanks tom for informations.
yes, the Big 6 Anarchists first, then we’re going to hit it with Tolkien’s The Monsters and the Critics, and write some Constitutional make-believe, آهنگ جدید
Khor is without, ratta ma
Take a look at the books on the shelves of your local library. Imagine those books dissolving into nothingness in two years. Or one year. Or six months. Imagine the library having to buy the same books over and over again because the courts have decreed that buying a book does not entitle the owner to lend the book out to one person at a time à la CDL .
Readers should not have to choose to either forfeit their privacy or forgo digital access to information; nor should libraries be forced to impose this choice on readers. CDL provides an ecosystem where all people, including those with mobility limitations and print disabilities, can pursue knowledge in a privacy-protective manner.”
I stand with Brewster Kahle in this crucial fight for the future of knowledge access and democratic values.
Tolkien said you’d say that – until the dragon comes (Beowulf reference, The Monsters and the Critics).
Would you go to prison with him, because that is the real deal.?
I really don’t get why people still support the big publishers when they’re clearly trying to dismantle more than just the IA. The world could, theoretically, survive without the IA, but it cannot survive without public resources and libraries in general.
incorrect
better to say: the US Govt. extends copyright to holders anywhere. @masironline
I really hope that worst-case scenario the IA can continue to exist so that we don’t lose absolutely everything like all the stuff that is basically lost media, nobody should support Hachette’s side
Internet archive must win. Its only helpful to the country
the last pirate I can think of was The Pirate Bay and they seem to be doing fine (no prison and still providing bootlegs).
Long-john Brewster needs to delete everything after 1927 imo
I don’t see why you shouldn’t be allowed to make digitized copies available in the same number as the purchased (or donated) hard copies you have in storage. Does the order you’re appealing make provision for this? If not, why not? Wasn’t it brought up during the original case?
i agree –
But someone needs to use a Virtual Private Network to test that. I think the Archive would fail the test 🙂
We wish you great strength and patience in the challenges ahead.
We need to help the Archive and support them in this Hachette v. Internet Archive case, it has been around for a very long time. And it has helped practically everyone. It is used for learning and research purposes.
I did notice that some things on the website are destroying the site. Some things people are uploading are “not” in the public domain. People should really check before they upload.
But FAIR USE does exist.
I love your digital newspapers. So if anyone likes reading.
Please support the Archive.
Knowledge is essential for humanity, everyday we learn and grow.
To learn from history so we do not follow in the sane mistakes of the past, to finding references to use in literature or movies. If we block knowledge we limit ourselves
If they actually pull this off – if the Internet Archive dies… It would be like burning the modern Library of Alexandria. The amount of knowledge stored here is just priceless. Wish I could support more. Godspeed, my friends.