AAP Hails Book Publishers’ SDNY Victory Over Internet Archive
The Association of American Publishers hailed Friday’s opinion and order granting four book publishers summary judgment in their lawsuit to thwart the Internet Archive from scanning print copies of physical books and lending the digital copies to users of IA’s website without the publishers’ permission. IA and other groups criticized the ruling.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
IA argued it was within its rights on fair use grounds. But U.S. District Judge John Koeltl for the Southern District of New York rejected IA’s arguments that would have “pushed fair use to illogical markers,” said AAP CEO Maria Pallante in a statement. Koeltl’s opinion “has underscored the importance of authors, publishers, and creative markets in a global society,” said Pallante.
AAP thanks “the thousands of public libraries across the country that serve their communities everyday" through "lawful" e-book licenses, said Pallante. “We hope the opinion will prove educational to the defendant and anyone else who finds public laws inconvenient to their own interests.”
The “crux” of IA’s arguments is that an organization has the right under fair use to make whatever copies of its print books are necessary to facilitate digital lending of that book, “so long as only one patron at a time can borrow the book for each copy that has been bought and paid for,” said Koeltl's opinion (docket 1:20-cv-04160). “But there is no such right, which risks eviscerating the rights of authors and publishers to profit from the creation and dissemination of derivatives of their protected works,” it said.
IA immediately said it will appeal, arguing in a Saturday blog post, headlined "The Fight Continues," that Koeltl's opinion was "a blow to all libraries and the communities we serve." The decision affects libraries across the U.S. that rely on "controlled digital lending to connect their patrons with books online," it said. The ruling also hurts authors "by saying that unfair licensing models are the only way their books can be read online," it said. It also "holds back access to information in the digital age, harming all readers, everywhere," it said.
Public Knowledge agrees the ruling was "disappointing," and it should be overturned on appeal, said Legal Director John Bergmayer. “Securing the future of libraries, and ensuring that consumers’ and readers’ rights are not forgotten in the digital age, is about more than just one court case," he said. "In area after area, companies, like the publishers who sued Internet Archive, are using the transition to digital media and technologies to take away long-established consumer rights to repair, lend, and resell the things they own."
Digital rights organization Fight for the Future blasted Koeltl's decision as "chilling." The judge "completely disregarded the traditional rights of libraries to own and preserve books in favor of maximizing the profits of Big Media conglomerates," it said.