Judge rules online archive's book service violated copyright

[Timber Rattler]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/judge-rules-online-archives-book-service-violated-copyright/ar-AA194Cd9

A federal judge has sided with four publishers who sued an online archive over its unauthorized scanning of millions of copyrighted works and offering them for free to the public. Judge John G. Koeltl of U.S. District Court in Manhattan ruled that the Internet Archive was producing "derivative" works that required permission of the copyright holder.

The Archive was not transforming the books in question into something new, but simply scanning them and lending them as ebooks from its web site.

"An ebook recast from a print book is a paradigmatic example of a derivative work," Koeltl wrote.

The Archive, which announced it would appeal Friday's decision, has said its actions were protected by fair use laws and has long had a broader mission of making information widely available, a common factor in legal cases involving online copyright.

"Libraries are more than the customer service departments for corporate database products," Internet Archive founder Brewster Kahle wrote in a blog post Friday. "For democracy to thrive at global scale, libraries must be able to sustain their historic role in society — owning, preserving, and lending books. This ruling is a blow for libraries, readers, and authors and we plan to appeal it."

In June 2020, Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, John Wiley & Sons, and Penguin Random House sued in response to the Archive's National Emergency Library, a broad expansion of its ebook lending service begun in the early weeks of the pandemic, when many physical libraries and bookstores had shut down. The publishers sought action against the emergency library and the archive's older and more limited program, controlled digital lending (CDL). Works by Toni Morrison, J.D. Salinger and Terry Pratchett were among the copyrighted texts publishers cited as being made available.

While the Authors Guild was among those opposing the emergency library, some writers praised it. Historian Jill Lepore, in an essay published in March 2020 in The New Yorker, encouraged readers who couldn't afford to buy books or otherwise were unable to find them during the pandemic to "please: sign up, log on, and borrow!" from the Internet Archive.

[Free Vulcan]

Hope it doesn't put them off the interwebs. You can download alot of old books on how they did things in simpler days, some of it is quite valuable for rural folk and homesteaders.

[Kamaji]

Such a ruling, applied broadly and rigorously, could result in the Internet Archive, aka the Wayback Machine, being treated as nothing more than a copyright violation - except perhaps in limited cirumstances - since it comprehensively scans and copies internet content and makes that content available on a by-date basis.

[Ghost Bear]

You won't see me say this often, but I side with the publishers on this one.  From the article, the Internet Archive was scanning and making available for download the full text of books which are still in print and still under copyright.  This is quite different from such things as providing excerpts or quotes, which are protected by fair use laws.

Scanning and making available books for which the copyright has expired is fine.  Doing the same with books which have gone out of print but for which copyright has not expired is questionable, probably illegal though (I-am-not-a-lawyer). Doing it with books still in copyright and still available from retail sources is right out.

[Smokin Joe]

You won't see me say this often, but I side with the publishers on this one.  From the article, the Internet Archive was scanning and making available for download the full text of books which are still in print and still under copyright.  This is quite different from such things as providing excerpts or quotes, which are protected by fair use laws.

Scanning and making available books for which the copyright has expired is fine.  Doing the same with books which have gone out of print but for which copyright has not expired is questionable, probably illegal though (I-am-not-a-lawyer). Doing it with books still in copyright and still available from retail sources is right out.

I tend to agree with you that this is dependent on copyright status. The publishers may have missed the mark by not making available e-editions of those books.

As far as out of print or books which are considered public domain, outfits like project Gutenberg should still be okay.