We want to hear from you: How does the appellate court’s decision affect your reading or research? What does it mean to you that 500,000+ books are no longer available in our lending library?
Please share your story: https://forms.gle/JgwWLxhvKgAZdV9T7
Dear whomever this may concern,
I’ve just read an article about the court decision made on September 4th about the Internet Archive. It is really a shame that such a beautiful institution like this one would be put under such scrutiny by the government. Having free access online to books and knowledge is important for our youth, and everyone for that matter.
Best regards,
Gary Toriman
I read a lot of the books that are no longer under copyright. Why are those no longer on Internet Archive?
Due to Hachette, HarperCollins, John Wiley & Sons, and Penguin Random House suing Internet Archive, I will be boycotting them from here on out. Get greedy, lose sales.
Pretty nuts a 2.7 billion dollar company sues archive.org. Seems freedom of speaking is being attacked at all angles. Archive.org. Telegram. Social Medea etc.
Hi there Internet Archive staff, I just heard that you are struggling against the lawsuit that these abusive book businesses are perpetuating, and I will give you some more strategies.
Public Interest and Social Good Argument
Leverage the Non-Profit Status: Emphasize that the Internet Archive operates as a non-profit, serving the public good by ensuring access to cultural and historical works that might otherwise be lost.
Cultural Preservation: Highlight the Archive’s crucial role in cultural preservation. They could argue that without their efforts, many works, especially older or out-of-print books, would be inaccessible.
Library Comparison: Draw parallels between the Internet Archive’s digital lending model and traditional library lending. Libraries have a long-standing right to lend books, and the Archive’s Controlled Digital Lending (CDL) system can be presented as an extension of that principle in the digital age.
2. Controlled Digital Lending (CDL) Justification
Limited Lending Practices: Emphasize how the Internet Archive’s Controlled Digital Lending (CDL) process mirrors traditional library practices. One physical copy equals one loaned digital copy, which respects the fundamental principle of book lending.
Fair Use Doctrine: Argue that CDL falls under fair use, especially in the context of transformative access—providing equitable access to knowledge and resources for education, research, and preservation.
Impact Mitigation: Demonstrate how CDL does not significantly harm the commercial value of books, as each digital loan replaces what would have been a physical one. This counters publishers’ claims of potential financial loss.
3. Collaboration and Outreach with Authors and Publishers
Partnership Initiatives: The Internet Archive could propose a partnership with authors and publishers to share revenues or offer licensing agreements, whereby a portion of any digital lending could be allocated to rights holders. This could mitigate opposition by offering compensation.
Author Opt-in Model: Explore an opt-in model where authors or publishers voluntarily choose to have their works digitally archived, allowing for smoother cooperation.
4. Educational and Research Emphasis
Supporting Academia: Emphasize the role of the Internet Archive in supporting educational institutions. The vast collection helps educators, students, and researchers by providing access to materials that would be cost-prohibitive or geographically inaccessible.
Research Exception: Argue that the Archive’s activities directly support research and scholarship, which may fall under exceptions recognized by copyright law. Many jurisdictions allow some exceptions for research, which could be an angle to explore.
5. First Sale Doctrine Argument
Ownership Rights: Argue that the Internet Archive owns legal copies of the books it digitizes, and under the First Sale Doctrine, it should have the right to distribute or lend those copies, even in a digital format, as long as it adheres to a one-to-one lending ratio.
6. Precedent from Similar Cases
Study Past Precedents: The legal team should carefully study and draw upon relevant precedents, such as those set by the Google Books project, which allowed for the digitization of books under the principles of fair use for search purposes. Even though the Archive’s case is somewhat different, there may be useful parallels.
7. Public Advocacy and Awareness
Rallying Public Support: Engaging the general public, scholars, and educators to voice their support could sway public opinion and potentially influence the outcome. They could create a media campaign that highlights the Archive’s mission and the societal benefits of preserving access to knowledge.
Petitions and Open Letters: Gathering petitions, open letters from leading academics, and expert testimony could emphasize the importance of keeping the Archive’s resources available.
8. Alternative Business Models
Adopt Limited Commercial Lending: One potential strategy could involve shifting to a limited commercial lending model. While keeping the core of the Archive’s mission free, some lending practices could involve modest licensing fees, appeasing publishers while keeping resources accessible.
9. Developing Stronger Preservation-Oriented Policies
Drafting Legislative Proposals: Work with lawmakers to draft or support legislation that protects the Archive’s role in cultural and historical preservation. The Archive’s team could lobby for clearer laws around digital preservation and library lending rights in the age of digital media.
10. Legal Defenses Based on International Models
International Library Models: Referencing legal frameworks from other countries where digital libraries are protected and fostered might bolster the case. For instance, countries with more progressive copyright laws regarding digital lending could serve as models or offer persuasive examples for legal arguments.
Another thing that I need you guys to consider doing, is proposing to government for anti-copyright abuse bills.
Anti-Copyright Abuse Act
Preamble:
Whereas copyright protection is essential for fostering creativity and innovation, it is equally imperative to prevent its abuse by entities and individuals for purposes contrary to the principles of fair use, freedom of expression, and the public interest. This act seeks to establish measures to deter and penalize copyright abuse while safeguarding the rights of creators and users alike.
Section 1: Definitions
Copyright Abuse: Any action or conduct by a copyright holder, entity, or individual that constitutes an abuse or misuse of copyright law for purposes not aligned with its intended objectives, including but not limited to censorship, stifling competition, or hindering legitimate uses.
Fair Use: The doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from or compensating the copyright holder, particularly for purposes such as criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research.
Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA): The existing legislation that addresses copyright infringement on digital platforms and outlines procedures for addressing copyright violations.
Section 2: Prohibited Acts
Abusive Copyright Claims: It shall be unlawful for any copyright holder or entity to issue false or fraudulent copyright claims with the intent to suppress legitimate uses of copyrighted material, including but not limited to fair use, parody, commentary, or criticism.
Copyright Trolling: Engaging in a pattern of frivolous copyright infringement claims or threats thereof, without a genuine intention of protecting copyrighted works but rather for the purpose of extorting settlements or stifling free expression, shall be deemed unlawful.
Circumvention of Fair Use: Deliberate actions taken by copyright holders or entities to impede, circumvent, or limit fair use rights through technological measures or contractual terms shall be prohibited.
Section 3: Enforcement and Penalties
Civil Remedies: Any person or entity aggrieved by copyright abuse may bring a civil action against the infringing party for damages, injunctive relief, and reasonable attorney’s fees.
Criminal Penalties: Willful and egregious violations of this act, including repeated instances of copyright abuse, may result in criminal prosecution, with penalties including fines and imprisonment as determined by the severity of the offense.
DMCA Reform: This act shall work in conjunction with existing provisions of the DMCA, but also introduce reforms to strengthen fair use protections, streamline the process for disputing copyright claims, and deter abuse of the DMCA takedown system.
Section 4: Safeguards for Fair Use and Freedom of Expression
Transparency Requirements: Copyright holders and entities issuing takedown notices or copyright claims must provide clear and specific evidence of infringement, and the basis for such claims, to ensure transparency and accountability.
Counter-Notice Mechanism: Establish a robust mechanism for individuals and entities to submit counter-notices challenging wrongful takedown actions, with expedited review procedures to restore content in cases of unjustified removals.
Public Domain Preservation: Strengthen efforts to identify and protect works in the public domain, ensuring that copyright claims do not unjustly restrict access to knowledge and cultural heritage.
Section 5: Education and Awareness
Public Education Campaigns: Launch educational initiatives to raise awareness among creators, users, and the general public about their rights and responsibilities under copyright law, including the importance of fair use and the consequences of copyright abuse.
Training for Copyright Holders: Provide resources and training programs for copyright holders, particularly large corporations and rights management organizations, to ensure they understand and respect the boundaries of copyright law and fair use principles.
Section 6: Sunset Provision
This act shall be subject to review and evaluation every five years to assess its effectiveness in deterring copyright abuse while promoting the legitimate exercise of copyright and fair use rights. Amendments or revisions may be made as necessary to adapt to evolving technological, social, and legal landscapes.
Section 7: Harsh Penalties for Copyright Abuse
Imprisonment for Individuals: Upon conviction of copyright abuse, individuals found guilty shall face imprisonment for a term commensurate with the severity of the offense, with a minimum sentence determined by law. This provision aims to deter individuals from engaging in willful and egregious acts of copyright abuse.
Temporary Business Shutdown for Corporations: In cases where corporations are found guilty of systematic copyright abuse, they shall face temporary suspension of business operations for a specified period, not exceeding a few months for minor offenses and up to several months to over a year for severe or repeated offenses. This measure is intended to hold corporations accountable for their actions and encourage compliance with copyright law.
Temporary Copyright Suspension: Perpetrators found guilty of copyright abuse, whether individuals or corporations, shall have their copyright privileges temporarily revoked for a period determined by the severity and nature of the offenses. This measure serves as a punitive measure to discourage future misconduct and to ensure that copyright is not wielded as a tool for unjust enrichment or censorship.
Section 8: Reinstatement Process
Rehabilitation and Compliance: Perpetrators subject to temporary business shutdown or copyright suspension may seek reinstatement upon demonstrating genuine efforts to rehabilitate and comply with copyright law. This may include implementing robust compliance programs, providing restitution to affected parties, and undergoing educational or training programs on copyright rights and responsibilities.
Review and Oversight: The reinstatement process shall be overseen by a designated authority responsible for evaluating the sincerity of the perpetrator’s efforts to reform and comply with the law. Reinstatement may be granted upon satisfactory completion of prescribed requirements and a determination that the risk of future copyright abuse has been sufficiently mitigated.
Section 9: Restorative Measures
Formal Apologies: Perpetrators found guilty of copyright abuse shall be required to issue formal apologies to the creators whose rights were infringed upon. These apologies shall be made publicly and in a manner that acknowledges the wrongdoing, expresses remorse, and commits to preventing similar violations in the future.
Restitution and Restoration: In addition to issuing apologies, perpetrators shall be mandated to take concrete actions to restore the content that was wrongfully taken down or infringed upon. This may include reinstating videos, images, or other materials to their original platforms and ensuring that proper credit and acknowledgment are given to the rightful creators.
Community Service: Perpetrators may be required to engage in community service activities aimed at promoting awareness of copyright issues and fostering a culture of respect for intellectual property rights. This could involve volunteering with organizations dedicated to supporting creators, educating the public about fair use principles, or assisting in the restoration of public domain works.
Section 10: Compliance Monitoring
Oversight Mechanisms: A dedicated oversight body shall be established to monitor compliance with the restorative measures outlined in this act. This body shall have the authority to investigate allegations of non-compliance, impose sanctions for failure to fulfill obligations, and provide support and guidance to perpetrators in meeting their restitution requirements.
Progress Reports: Perpetrators shall be required to submit periodic progress reports detailing their efforts to fulfill the restorative measures mandated by the court or relevant authorities. These reports shall be subject to review and verification by the oversight body to ensure accountability and transparency.
Section 11: Regulation of Copyright Bots
Prohibition on Automated Copyright Enforcement Systems: It shall be unlawful to develop, deploy, or operate automated copyright enforcement systems, commonly referred to as “copyright bots” or “content recognition systems,” for the purpose of identifying and issuing takedown notices for allegedly infringing content without human review.
Strict Liability for Misuse of Copyright Bots: Any entity or individual found to have utilized automated copyright enforcement systems in violation of this act shall be held strictly liable for any resulting erroneous takedowns or infringements of fair use rights. This provision aims to deter the indiscriminate use of automated systems and hold accountable those responsible for their misuse.
Enforcement and Penalties: Violations of the prohibition on copyright bots shall be subject to civil and criminal penalties, including fines, injunctions, and criminal prosecution where warranted. Additionally, individuals or entities found to have developed or distributed copyright bots shall be liable for facilitating copyright abuse and may be subject to sanctions accordingly.
Section 12: Oversight and Accountability
Regulatory Oversight: A regulatory body shall be established to oversee compliance with the prohibition on copyright bots and to investigate allegations of misuse or abuse of automated copyright enforcement systems. This body shall have the authority to issue guidelines, conduct audits, and impose sanctions as necessary to ensure compliance with the law.
Transparency Requirements: Entities or individuals utilizing automated copyright enforcement systems for permissible purposes, such as content identification and management, shall be required to disclose the use of such systems transparently to users and provide mechanisms for disputing erroneous takedowns.
Conclusion:
By integrating restorative measures such as formal apologies and content restoration into the consequences for copyright abuse, this act seeks to not only hold perpetrators accountable for their actions but also to provide meaningful redress to the creators whose rights were infringed upon. By actively engaging perpetrators in the process of repairing the harm caused by their misconduct, this approach promotes reconciliation, rehabilitation, and a renewed commitment to upholding the principles of copyright law and fair use.
Thanks for taking the time to read, and good luck.
Yours sincerely,
Andrew Paul Matchett
This decision has a great impact on the archive and should be reconsidered.
Can someone please explain if out of print books will be affected or not?
As a writer, it means one should never publish with any of these publishers. If you want your work to last, stay well away from them. When your “publisher” suppresses your work, they aren’t a publisher any more — they’re a censor.
Please talk to the Russian Embassy about moving your assets to Russia and starting anew there. The Internet Archive sadly has no future in the US or any other western country anymore.
I’m a monthly donor to the Internet Archive. Instead of *asking* me how the Court’s ruling will affect IA (and by extension, me), I wish IA would make a real attempt to *tell* me how the Court’s ruling will affect IA. Specifically, I’m very concerned that now that IA is legally liable for years of massive copyright violations, IA will be sued out of all its money. Lacking money for operating expenses, IA will shut down. This will include shutting down the Wayback Machine and all of the out-of-copyright material in the open library: those services aren’t legally vulnerable, but it takes money to run the server room, and the people behind IA simply will not have money to run it. (And no, increasing one’s monthly donation won’t help: IA will owe *billions* of dollars.)
I’d like to hear what concrete actions IA is taking to put a monetary “firewall” between the Court’s ruling and IA’s financially vulnerable services like the Wayback Machine and the open library. Or if it would be unwise to tip your hand as to the exact machinations, at least a very clear “yes, we understand the stakes and we’re working on (or “we have”) such a firewall” would be *really* appreciated by your donors.
Basically, I’m hoping IA will respond to https://lunduke.locals.com/post/6079435/the-internet-archive-loses-appeal-as-expected .
This needs to be revaluated and more.
you guys aren’t doing anything wrong.
you’re a library, nothing more or less.
I hate that this has occurred. This is the same type of site as with any Internet-based library database. I buy all types of media frequently including used books, which are widely and easily available.