Today’s lower court decision in Hachette v. Internet Archive is a blow to all libraries and the communities we serve. This decision impacts libraries across the US who rely on controlled digital lending to connect their patrons with books online. It hurts authors by saying that unfair licensing models are the only way their books can be read online. And it holds back access to information in the digital age, harming all readers, everywhere.
But it’s not over—we will keep fighting for the traditional right of libraries to own, lend, and preserve books. We will be appealing the judgment and encourage everyone to come together as a community to support libraries against this attack by corporate publishers.
We will continue our work as a library. This case does not challenge many of the services we provide with digitized books including interlibrary loan, citation linking, access for the print-disabled, text and data mining, purchasing ebooks, and ongoing donation and preservation of books.
Statement from Internet Archive founder, Brewster Kahle:
“Libraries are more than the customer service departments for corporate database products. 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.”
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.
Here’s the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth that I’m gonna tell Hachette that I warn everyone No infringements of any kind is intended. So once again The Internet Archive is not guilty or suspicious. That’s why I always stand with the Internet Archive. Not Hachette. I’m sorry for the inconvenience so I can’t research or preserve anything without the Internet Archive. I can only stick with the Internet Archive. I get a help from the Internet Archive. and I also always stand up for the digital rights of all libraries of the world! although I didn’t have money to donate yet. But I add everything to my favorites. By the way tell Hachette that I’ve been waiting for a Warner Bros. 100th Anniversary Book this year and I’ll get it off from ebay.
Yes, it is truly real that this organization is innocent and educational. It has all the collection of books and other works that are completely educational.
You are ignorant of copyright laws. Your INTENT means nothing. When you steal copyrighted material and post it for free you are still stealing and violating copyright even if your “intent” is not to… although i believe 100% you are lying about your “intent” anyway.
Archive.org has some really good cultural and historical content but it is NOT by any stretch of the imagination a “library.”
What “library” Let’s children view hardcore pornography and Muslim mullahs rant endlessly? What library allows obviously stolen content to sit for years on its shelves?
This isn’t a library. It’s a dumping ground for stolen content.
And archives can be both. Which is what this is.
You are a sheep, standing up for the Big guy, how brave you are
Cringe.
David Lynch, stop Lynching what you do not understand.
Any attack against the Internet Archive is part of a larger coordinated plan to silence truth, particularly any knowledge that will inform a resistance to the Satanic New World Order that is growing in these coming years.
When America is destroyed in 2028, and the military boot crushes your balls, THEN you will understand. Not before.
The Internet Archive must never give in to any forms of censorship whatsoever. But if Internet Archive fails, as it has occasionally done in the past, then many others will continue its mission.
Truth will win on earth, one way or another. How much of it you can learn for yourself is in part the noble mission of web sites like Internet Archive.
You have no idea how valuable the content is on this web site, and the magnitude of the forces that seek to destroy that content, so hold your tongue.
I never thought I’d hear David advocate taking down the “really weird stuff” from the internets because it makes him uncomfortable. But here we are!
> Archive.org has some really good cultural and historical content but it is NOT by any stretch of the imagination a “library.”
The state of California disagrees: https://old.post-gazette.com/pg/07175/796164-96.stm
If you honestly believe with all your heart that the Internet Archive is not a library, lobby the California State Government to get its library status revoked. Until then, it’s a library.
David, Open Library is a part of the Internet Archive that allows people to digitally check out books for a short period of time. It is, or at least was, a registered library. There are many other libraries that have similar features who will now be targetted with similar lawsuits that will cripple the existence of libraries in general. Your “think of the children” comment is unrelated to the topic at hand and shows how little you know about Open Library and just libraries in general. Yes, libraries have books that some might deem taboo or offensive. From American Psycho to Huckleberry Finn, these books exist and are available at libraries. Wether they get into the hands of children isn’t the fault of the Internet Archive but the stupidity of parents for not moderating their child’s behaviour. You can’t silence freedom of speech based upon wether you think something is appropriate for children because news flash: somethings aren’t made for children and were never intended for children. So saying “think of the children!” over content not made nor intended for children is silly and is just a weak-man’s way of saying he hates freedom of speech and views that appose his own. Also a “Mullah” is just an Islamic priest. There’s nothing horrifying about that. “Oh no, a Rabbi!” is how silly you sound.
Archive.org is not a library, and a digital book isn’t a book either. So whatever ramblings you think makes you right only work against you.
The internet belongs to those who build it… Your law doesn’t apply here. There are other way to capitalize on media besides directly charging for it… Perhaps you should quit being lazy and come up with some.
Stop being a shill. Clearly they don’t just want the books gone, they want all the saved internet pages gone too. Then no one will be able to prove that “hey, remember that one person or organization said this thing and now they’re denying it?” There will be no backup, no proof of the lies they told.
Thanks, lads. Do what you can. There is a massive effort to archive as well. If it has to be decentralized, then so be it, but we’d rather that not happen.
That might be worse. Your only media would be stodgy, uncompetitive movies and the black market. Could we stop the 2020s MTV or YouTube from showing ISIS recruiting videos?
Just wow, has the judge know that some books in a physical library have licensed digital versions as well? This means they are trying to retroactively apply licensing schemes to physical books just because those books have a licensed version.
They have forgotten one important aspect, licensing restrictions that override copyright’s limitation only happens to the person or organization if that entity have signed the binding agreement. You cannot apply such licensing restrictions that overrides fair use to any entity that didn’t agree to the binding agreement.
If a person can’t afford a book then he have right to read it online what’s wrong with this.
Knowledge is necessary for everyone.
Slaves are not allowed to know, own, or say anything.
If in the end you lose the war… have you everything from sites to software backed up? Please come back one day if you do end up losing. You’ve got to, for the sake of libraries and innocent people who care about the future.
It was nice knowing you, IA. Time to shut down.
Welcome to the Age of our corporate overlords, where information is paywalled.
One day, someone will look back on history and see is a black wall of nothing. for History has been erased by power-hungry old men and women.
KEEP FIGHTING THE GOOD FIGHT!
Thanks. for loud a free books about humanities.
I hope they have a card up their sleeve in case injustice wins.
What will happen to software, magazines and videos?
I don’t think those will be affected unless IA get’s sued for a lot of money.
“Judge John G. Koeltl decided that the Internet Archive had done nothing more than create “derivative works,” and so would have needed authorization from the books’ copyright holders — the publishers — before lending them out through its National Emergency Library program.”
They simply temporally remove the download limits of the books, retaining all other restrictions like preventing patrons from re-distributing the books and having a time limit before they become inaccessible on the user’s device. This merely acts as a temporary access, even after the NEL was shut down, users cannot keep it.
“there is nothing transformative about [Internet Archive’s] copying and unauthorized lending,” and that copying these books doesn’t provide “criticism, commentary, or information about them.”
The CDL system MUST have a copy (you cannot digitally lend out a physical book without digitizing it) but distributes as if there aren’t any unauthorized copies. And libraries don’t have to have criticism, commentary, or information about them in order to lend them. When a physical library obtains a book via buying them or via donations, they just register it to their system and have it on the bookshelf for anyone to read it, no changes to that book besides putting a due date of when to return.
“there was no direct evidence, and that it was “irrelevant” that the Internet Archive had purchased its own copies of the books before making copies for its online audience”
You cannot held the IA liable for simply running the CDL system and not having evidence of purchasing its own copies, they can obtain books via donations by other people. If whoever have stolen the book (shoplift, went to some shady site to obtain it illegally) prior to donating it to the IA, only that person should be held liable, the IA would be unaware of this person’s act. Furthermore, there must be proof that the IA knowingly and willfully obtain books from an illegal source, else this violates the Presumption of innocence, which implied via amendments Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth. See this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence
Also, copyright law does not and should not automatically retroactively prohibit libraries from lending out physical books when those books have a licensed e-book version, such restrictions only apply when the licensing schemes’ terms are agreed. If the library owns it, they own it, not somehow license it just because the ebook version later exists. The judge seems to forget the role of libraries that they obtain books and lend them out doesn’t have any licensing scheme at all.
The same should also apply to CDL. Don’t assume that “if it is digitized by the publishers, then digitization by libraries too are licensed”.
Pingback: New York federal judge shoots down online e-book lending | Courthouse News Service
It hurts authors by saying that unfair licensing models are the only way their books can be read online.
I rely on you literally *every day* since a while to research some old books that are way too expensive to order and in 0 library around me. The closest public library with the book am reading now is in Spain. Another country entirely. I do not know what I’ll do without your website. This is legit making me sad.
I think the Internet Archive should cut a deal with the publishers. As users, we pay a small subscription fee annually, and part of that revenue goes back to the publishers, so we can continue to read their books.
No thank you. You are not seeing the nefarious intention behind attacking the Internet Archive. You are excusing the wound because you are blind to the war at hand. Maybe you should watch this video on the Internet Archive for a clue:
https://archive.org/details/jfk_secret_societies
Soon this site will be completely destroyed and shut down.
Time to wave the white flag.
Nobody who cares about the Internet Archive should ever buy another book from Hatchette, ever. No matter what the title. Don’t feed the beast. You stopped buying CD’s 15 years ago to punish the RIAA for their failed filesharing lawsuits, not it’s time to stop buying Hatchette’s books. They’re only good for toilet paper anyway, and you can get that cheaper at the grocery store
HACHETTE BOOK GROUP, INC.,
HARPERCOLLINS PUBLISHERS LLC,
JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC., and
PENGUIN RANDOM HOUSE LLC
https://www.eff.org/document/hachette-v-internet-archive-internet-archives-reply-iso-summary-judgment
But even better, the authors who publish through those publishers are pissed off at the publishers and should cancel their contracts and use another publisher instead.
Stick it to them where it hurts: right in the greed they indecently publicly exposed to the world.
A sad day indeed
Strange that the legal doctrine of standing isn’t addressed by this rogue New York judge at all. After all, it would be difficult for any court to find standing in the absence of actual damages. Folks, be very clear what this is about. It is about the publishing houses efforts to do with books what technology conglomerates have done with software, namely eliminate the idea of ownership. Most of you know none of us OWN our copy of Microsoft Windows. We license it. Publishers and corporate authors want this model for the books we buy, since that’s the business model that keeps on giving. First they came for our eBooks. Soon they’ll come for our print books, which they fancy to be little more than rentals. This system itself is lawless!
I have benefited from the IA, but the truth is you have made unauthorized copies of copyrighted works. While you may criticize the publishers, this is also an issue for writers. And writers are workers like everyone else. The law seems quite clear on the matter.
Why don’t you try to find a compromise with the publishers? There are libraries that require a library card for book lending. For example, I used to pay a monthly fee for the National Library in Berlin.
You can just charge a fee for digital library cards and work out a financial deal with the publishers, like a Netflix for books. I would rather pay a fee and support writers than stand on shaky legal and moral ground as is the case now. It’s better to settle with the publishers and find a workable solution that can resolve this issue, than to get the library shut down by a court.
But what about ancient old orphan works and those that are long out of print?
I would suspect that most of the IA lending business is in these texts. How do you track down that ownership — if it still exists — and why aren’t THEY required to protest? Why Hatchett?
Again, this is an issue for Congress. They need to modernize in some way the presently held First Sale Doctrine. Which we should thank god exists, because this same crowd would already have closed down public libraries. Or made them pay a big license!
because the mission is to make knowledge free which implies not settling on compromises like this. hopefully getting a library shut down will start a rebellion or get people to pirate and deprive publishers off their revenues. because authors get pennies for every dollar the publishers make.
1. Writers do not benefit off of the licensing models as much as you may think. Oftentimes the publishers take a disproportionate amount of money and some writers may not even want their work published in that way. If you want to support writers as workers, it is detrimental to support the people they work under. The monthly fee you mentioned would not support the writers as much as you think.
2. libraries cannot be compared to streaming (referencing “Netflix for books” here) since they provide an important service to society beyond providing entertainment like Netflix does. They provide educational programs for children, refugees, senior citizens, and anyone else who might not have access to it otherwise, they offer a safe, warm space that is free to access even without money or paying for a library card, and so much more. Additionally, streaming services like Netflix exist to make money and always seek to maximize profit whereas libraries simply exist to provide a service to the public, similar to how public transport is not profitable but improve their surroundings nonetheless.
3. The law seems clear on the matter because corporations have a strong hand in the law due to lobbying. Copyright law favors corporations more than the creators themselves.
I strongly recommend here to read up on the social construct of crime (here is a twitter thread that offers a simplified explanation: https://twitter.com/djmckenna00/status/1269218616861437952?s=20
but it is of course better to read up on the concept with peer-reviewed works so you can form an educated unbiased opinion, if you can afford to pay for the hefty fees the publishers ask for 😉
4. If you live in Germany like me (I assume so since you paid for a library card in Berlin?) then you should have had the education to know that making books (and therefor education) inaccessible to the general public is dubious at best. We have the history to know what restricting information can do and we cannot make the mistake to put books behind walls again. It might be tempting to say “oh but you can still access them, you just have to pay”, but that bars a group of considerable size from accessing basic education and the implications that has for our democracy are again, dubious at best.
You’re German, and you know better than most that a person negotiating with a Nazi means there are two Nazis. The publishers’ interests isn’t remuneration; it’s destruction.
A couple things. I know this is an issue for Congress, but what about the plight of orphan and out-of-print works that no publisher is EVER going to reissue? I would suspect that 95 percent + of these IA loans are such works.
Also, it sounds more like the judge was ruling against the Pandemic library that offered multiple uses of a work at one time. But only one now? How is that a big deal? And why aren’t the publishers required to prove harm?
I also agree with the claim that if these guys had their way now they’d be outlawing libraries as unfair “theft.” And getting away with it in the courts.
So what’s the future? Did the judge order a shutdown of the loan program?
they aren’t required to prove harm because copyright law already protects them.
I’m somewhat upset that IA isn’t telling us what exactly would be affect. Yes, are the orphan works going to be deleted too? What about the Wayback Machine? This to me is a deliberate destruction of history.
Pingback: Links 25/03/2023: Decade of Docker, Azure Broken Again | Techrights
Decentralize it
Ask for community support for storage
I am willing to offer free storage for use and I am sure more people are in order to save this platform
They can not shut us all down
Totally amused by the comments of these inexperienced, ignorant children who think they have a right to steal just because, well, we can’t let the corporate overlords win.
The corporate overlords have the law and ethics on their side. Sorry Internet Archive you can’t have a web site made up 95% stolen content and claim to be a legitimate library.
Many years I have gleaned great historical material from this site, but always knowing it’s a treasure trove of theft of copyright so won’t be around forever.
There’s perhaps the “law” on their side, but ethics? Not so much. If you find the whole premise of IA so egregious, where are YOUR ethics in continuously taking advantage of its content for “many years” while being personally convinced of its “theft of copyright” position even so? You regularly take advantage of the use of others “Ill gotten gains” even though you personally know it to be illegal? Really? That puts your own ethics into significant suspicion here. I am then given to assume you will immediately cease and desist of such continued illegal behavior, given your high price on other’s ethics.
Stolen from whom? Un-traceable copyright holders from 70 years ago? That’s the stuff I borrow.
Is the public library down the street lending out purloined works too? Is the borrower stealing it?
By your logic, yes.
It’s a library according to the state of California: https://old.post-gazette.com/pg/07175/796164-96.stm
If you don’t think it’s a library, take it up with Gavin Newsom.
>Totally amused by the comments of these inexperienced, ignorant children who think they have a right to steal just because, well, we can’t let the corporate overlords win.
>The corporate overlords have the law and ethics on their side.
Perhaps the law, that’s up to people more familiar with copyright law than I am & the legal system to settle. That’ll take time.
Ethics??? HA!
We have time and time again seen that corporations will try to get away with murder if there’s a buck in it for them. If it was legal, or if there was legal loopholes that made it likely for a corporate entity to want to try and make a profit off of it, you betcha it would only be a matter of time before an corporation would chop your grandmother up, can her remains and sell her as fishbait.
If you think this isn’t the case, and if you don’t think there’s a battle on to wring every single dollar out of whoever has a dollar on their pockets, every single last fraction of a percent of potential profit margin off the markets (white, grey, or otherwise) in any way possible, then you are the terribly historically ignorant child here and you should go sit in the corner with reddened cheeks.
-p
“Many years have [you] gleaned great historical material from this site”, yet somehow you feel you deserve to cast aspersions on the ‘ethics’ of other users of this invaluable resource
Guess you only publish comments that favor your side…
What are you talking about? Your inane comment is right there in the open. Works that are out of copyright have no business being involved in this case. They should stay, no one “owns” them anymore. Plus you know that the Wayback Machine will be affected by this if they have to pay monetary damages, so goodbye internet history, but all you care about is the “muh law”.
I want to keep internet Archive alive
Do you suppose that EVERYTHING that belongs in the archive are going to be no more if this battle ends in possible “failure”?
Just the lending library, but yes, how much. Orphan works too?
The courts won’t inevitably carve out an exemption for the un-traceable? Can they be legally encouraged to do so at this point?
I stand up tight. I stand high for the childhood memories I keep discovering almost every day. Anything lost will be found right here right now, and will remain that way.
This decision affects readers worldwide, and shouldn’t be up to one biased judge…who yet again takes the side of the “chosen” few, united by greed and desire to discriminate
I thank Internet Archive and its team for all the good work and services
GB
My friend is visually impaired and likes to read nonfiction. Not only does this site read aloud it also enables him to see high quality illustrations because he can zoom them. Regular eBooks do not compare to the scanned books available here. The search feature is AWESOME.
I believe that all the scanned works are available to the visually impaired. They can even be downloaded with specially obtained software — it’s on the webpage for each search.
It’s been that way for quite a while — those are not at issue now.
I write. I research heavily. Especially online. The half of it is having the Internet Archive. Without such a powerful free resource available I’m finished in many ways. Why? Because it’s just too costly to travel the great distances required in physical world that allow access to the specialized books and media I need to complete my work. I think a lot of people like myself are in the same position. I truly believe that the Internet Archive is not only one of the last stands of free libraries. But a free Internet in particular. Meaning every online website visited could require a fee or costly charge. Or else you will be thrown (to the sharks) into a hellish world of non-stop ads and commercials.
I write. I research heavily. Especially online. The half of it is having the Internet Archive. Without such a powerful free resource available I’m finished in many ways. Why? Because it’s just too costly to travel the great distances required in physical world that allow access to the specialized books and media I need to complete my work. I think a lot of people like myself are in the same position. I truly believe that the Internet Archive is not only one of the last stands of free libraries. But a free Internet in particular. Meaning every online website visited could require a fee or costly charge. Or else you will be thrown (to the sharks) into a hellish world of non-stop ads and commercials.
Espero que Internet Archive se mantenga en funcionamiento y gane el caso judicial. Internet Archive tiene todo lo que es DIFÍCIL de encontrar donde otros sitios web no lo hacen. Apoyo Internet Archive y Open Library.
¡Bien!
Pingback: Internet Archive violated publisher copyrights by lending ebooks, court rules | Engadget
“They paved paradise and put up a parking lot / With a pink hotel, a boutique, and a swinging hot spot / Don’t it always seem to go / That you don’t know what you got ’til it’s gone? / They paved paradise and put up a parking lot / They took all the trees and put ’em in a tree museum / And they charged the people a dollar and a half to see them…” — Counting Crows
Sorry, those lyrics were from Joni Mitchell originally. Google pranked me by putting Counting Crows as the artist in the Knowledge Panel about the song when I googled the lyrics.
As an AI language model, I am not able to express an opinion on ongoing legal matters or litigation. However, the statement from the Internet Archive founder highlights the importance of libraries in society and their role in preserving and providing access to knowledge and cultural heritage. The Internet Archive and libraries across the US have been providing valuable services through controlled digital lending, allowing patrons to access books that may be out of print or otherwise unavailable, while limiting the number of digital copies that can be checked out at any one time to match the number of physical copies owned by the participating libraries.
The decision in the Hachette v. Internet Archive case raises important questions about the balance between copyright law and the public interest in accessing information and preserving cultural heritage. It remains to be seen how the case will be resolved, but it is a reminder of the challenges faced by libraries and cultural institutions in the digital age. The statement from the Internet Archive founder also highlights the importance of continuing to support libraries in their mission to serve their communities and provide access to knowledge and cultural heritage.
The Internet Archive is a crucial resource for preserving and providing access to digital history, promoting education and innovation, supporting a free and open internet, and providing resources for legal and policy debates. Its digital library helps to document the evolution of the internet and provides access to historical information that may have otherwise been lost. The Archive promotes lifelong learning and contributes to a more informed society. It fosters innovation and creativity by providing access to historical information, and it helps to prevent “digital decay” by preserving content for future generations. The Archive is also committed to promoting an open and accessible internet, and it has played a critical role in legal cases and policy debates. It is essential to continue supporting and preserving the Internet Archive for the benefit of future generations.
im with you guys
I would just give up.
i hate life
No need to give up the Internet Archive they will win this appeal.
I’m doubtful. The deck is stacked against the IA.
Unfortunately true.
But never say never, you never know what can happen. Anything is possible.
I’m curious about one thing here too.
One legal authority I read said that this only involves about 170 cited works, and that Hatchett would have a helluva time going after it all — that those would require separate actions, and so don’t worry too much.
Is this true? What are the immediate plans of the IA here? Did the judge effectively shut the whole lending library down, so that on Monday it will all have disappeared?
I wish IA would publish a statement on this, they’re not being forthcoming with what will be deleted.
How many books that are going to be removed from IA are we talking about?
I am major believer in & supporter of IA. That said, I also understand & respect the publishers side of things. You could forgo a great deal of legal grief if you only uploaded books that are out of print or that have the author’s permission.
I believe that all the scanned works are available to the visually impaired. They can even be downloaded with specially obtained software — it’s on the webpage for each search.
It’s been that way for quite a while — those are not at issue now.
I am major believer in & supporter of IA. That said, I also understand & respect the publishers side of things. You could forgo a great deal of legal grief if you only uploaded books that are out of print or that have the author’s permission.
The ruling is what the judge has determined not Hachette. It seems many people falsely think that because something is on the Internet, it is free. Not so. If you want a hard copy of a book or magazine, most libraries will deliver a copy to your door. When you download an unauthorized e-book, you deprive the author of his residuals, plain and simple. It’s no different than with music. No one is entitled to free use of someone’s property without expressed permission. Copyright laws exist for a reason. Obviously this is lost on many people who simply feel entitled. Try making a living from being an author, then perhaps you may wake up.
Internet Archive should offer publishing contracts so authors can boycott the plaintiffs and their amicus curiae.