Internet Archive Loses Copyright Case: 500,000 Books to Be Removed from Digital Access

The Internet Archive loses a copyright case, leading to the removal of 500,000 books from digital access, raising concerns about public access and digital preservation.

on Sep 06, 2024

Internet archive loses book copyright case

The Internet Archive has suffered a significant defeat in its legal battle with major publishing houses following a ruling by the Second Circuit US Court of Appeals. The court found that the Archive's digitization efforts, particularly through its National Emergency Library (NEL), infringed on copyright laws. As a result, over 500,000 books will be withdrawn from digital lending.

Launched in March 2020, the NEL aimed to provide access to books during the pandemic when physical libraries were closed. Unlike the Archive's usual practice of allowing only one user per book, the NEL permitted multiple simultaneous borrowers, leading to accusations of piracy from authors and publishers. Despite reinstating borrowing limits, the Archive faced a lawsuit from major publishers such as Hachette, HarperCollins, Penguin Random House, and Wiley, who argued that the Archive’s practices violated fair use principles.

The initial ruling in March 2023 sided with the publishers, determining that the Archive's actions constituted unauthorized derivative works. The August 2023 settlement included a permanent injunction prohibiting the Archive from lending complete copies of the contested books. The appellate court upheld this decision on September 4, 2024, while clarifying that the Internet Archive, though nonprofit, was found in violation of copyright regulations.

Maria A. Pallante, president and CEO of the Association of American Publishers, praised the ruling for reinforcing authors' and publishers' rights. Chris Freeland, the Internet Archive’s director of library services, expressed disappointment, emphasizing the Archive's commitment to defending library rights. Dave Hansen from the Author’s Alliance also criticized the ruling, arguing that it would disadvantage many authors and researchers who rely on digital access for their work.

The ruling underscores ongoing tensions between copyright enforcement and digital preservation efforts, highlighting the impact on public access to important literary resources.