Copyright: Internet Archive forced to delete 500,000 books from online library
Large publishers can notify the Internet Archive of works whose digital version it must remove from its Open Library. The consequences are now known.
Because copyright is not a free online library.
(Image: MR Gao/Shutterstock.com)
The Internet Archive's Open Library, which works in a similar way to traditional libraries and lends digital copies of purchased or donated physical books, has had to remove around 500,000 books from its collection due to a copyright lawsuit brought by major publishers. Chris Freeland, librarian at the non-profit organization based in San Francisco, made the announcement in a blog post. According to Freeland, the lending project, which was launched in 2007, comprised 24 million bibliographic records and links to 1.2 million digitized books just two years later. In 2020, around 1.5 million works were available for lending. This means that around a third of the online inventory is currently no longer available.
The publishers Hachette, Harpercollins, John Wiley & Sons and Penguin Random House (Bertelsmann) sued the Internet Archive in New York in 2020. In the high-profile case, they accuse the operator of intentionally infringing copyright with the Open Library by scanning books, uploading the digital copies to its own servers and offering them on a publicly accessible website. Authors and publishers are not remunerated for these uses. During the coronavirus pandemic, the creators temporarily opened their online library, which had already been criticized by copyright holders, to students as a "National Emergency Library" for an unlimited period of time, which ultimately triggered the lawsuit. In March 2023, the court ruled that the archive was liable for copyright infringements and should pay damages.
The Internet Archive appealed against this decision at the end of last year. The operator argues that its "controlled digital lending program" constitutes lawful use on the basis of the US "fair use" doctrine. The case is also about preserving the principle of traditional library lending in the digital world and the free transfer of knowledge associated with it. A hearing will take place on June 28, for which the Internet Archive is now preparing itself further publicly and making the extent of the effects of the first instance ruling known.
"Important work for readers and authors"
According to the cease-and-desist declaration under discussion in the second round of proceedings, all groups of companies belonging to the plaintiff publishers can send the operator lists of the works they are currently marketing commercially as e-books at any time. The Internet Archive then has 14 days to remove these from its online library. Over the past few months, a lot has come together. If the publishers do not offer a title as an e-book, the archive may initially continue to lend the scans it has produced online.
"Our position is clear," Freeland now explains: "We simply want to make it possible for our library visitors to borrow and read the books we own, just like in any other library. We buy and acquire books - yes, physical, printed books - and make them available for someone to borrow and read online. This work is important for readers and authors alike, as many younger and low-income readers can only read when books are available to borrow for free." In addition, many works are only discovered or preserved through the work of librarians.
Google Books benefits from fair use
"We use industry-standard technology to prevent our books from being downloaded and redistributed," emphasizes Freeland. He is referring to the digital rights management (DRM) used. To defend this, the Internet Archive has already taken action against an anti-DRM tool. It is the same technology "that is also used by commercial publishers", explains Freeland. However, the plaintiffs demanded "that we should not be allowed to lend the books we own". The first court decision and the resulting injunction had generally had "profoundly negative consequences" for users. "They have flooded us with many requests," writes the librarian. "From the hundreds of testimonials we have received, it is clear that access to our books remains an absolute necessity for the many people around the world who rely on our library for their education and professional development."
The operator has written an open letter to the publishers urging them to restore access to the books and the knowledge they contain. The petition is open for co-signing. There is a chance of success in reopening the case. In 2015, for example, a US appeals court ruled that Google's Books book scanning project does not infringe copyright. The use complied with the fair use concept. However, Google Books does not allow users to borrow books, but to browse digitized books and read excerpts. Furthermore, in a copyright dispute between a university and the publisher Cambridge University Press, US courts largely ruled against the latter with reference to fair use. The bone of contention here was that students posted excerpts from protected works in the university's online forums.
(anw)
