Today, the Internet Archive (IA) has championed the practice of digitizing books and lending the e-books to Open Library users for free. In 2020, four of the richest publishers sued the IA, saying this kind of digital lending was actually “intentional digital piracy” and was causing them “huge harm.” claimed. But IA attorney Joseph Gratz argues that Open Library’s digitization of physical books is fair use and that the publisher has yet to prove that he is harmed by IA’s digital lending. bottom.
“There is no evidence that the publisher has lost a dime,” Gratz said at oral argument in New York District Court.
Federal Judge John Kertl will decide whether IA’s digital rental constitutes copyright infringement. During oral argument, Keltl’s tough questions of Glatz and plaintiffs’ attorney Elizabeth McNamara suggested that resolving the issue would not be any easier than either side had previously indicated. He said publishers have the right to control copies of their books, so the “core of the case” is to determine whether IA’s book scans infringe copyright. He pointed out that copying an already licensed physical book and lending it out without paying further license fees. the publisher.
“Does a library have the right to make copies of books it owns and lend to library patrons e-books it creates without a license or permission?” Koeltl tells Gratz in this particular case. asked as a tense rebuttal to the IA’s stance that it was about the right of libraries to lend books.
McNamara argued that many libraries rent e-books by paying publishers a license fee, which he said was a market undermined by the IA’s digital lending practices. The IA has the burden of proving otherwise. Otherwise, you may be held liable and subject to a permanent injunction to stop the alleged infringement.
Although the lawsuit was triggered by the creation of his own unlicensed e-book, Gratz argued that the IA’s digital lending was fair use. The technology will be used to transform millions of physical books in order to improve lending efficiency without violating the rights of authors or authors. Harm because lending e-books avoids disputes and respects traditional lending in brick-and-mortar libraries that has been practiced for years without impacting publisher revenues. there is no.
The only exception to this one-to-one ratio was when the IA set up the “National Emergency Library” over the 12 weeks into which the pandemic began, making “huge numbers of scanned books available to an unlimited number of individuals.” “at the same time,” plaintiffs’ complaint states. .
But the book publishing industry experienced so much demand during this time that revenue increased 12%, jumping $3 billion in sales by 2021, Publishers Weekly reports. With publishers profiting when the National Emergency Library became available, Koeltl resented her McNamara and asked how she reconciled the surge in profits and claims for damages.
McNamara seemed to suggest that publishers would have been richer had IA not provided unprecedented free and unlimited e-book access. She also told Koeltl that publishers like Hachette, HarperCollins, Penguin Her Random House, and Wiley avoid paying licensing fees for e-books by partnering with IA to make their own copies. He said he is concerned that there are already libraries out there that are using them. If a court sanctions her IA’s digitization practices and thousands of libraries start digitizing books in their collections, the entire e-book licensing market will collapse, she suggested, McNamara.
“Free is an insurmountable competitor,” said the publisher’s complaint.
Ars was unable to reach the Internet Archive or the publisher’s legal team for comment.
