Open Library: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:51, 4 April 2023

Revision as of 22:32, 6 April 2023

Line 51:

=== ''Hachette v. Internet Archive'' ===

{{Main|Hachette v. Internet Archive}}

The Open Library further came under criticism from several authors and publishers groups when it created the [[Internet Archive#National Emergency Library|National Emergency Library]] in response to the [[COVID-19 pandemic]] in March 2020. Under these exigent circumstances, the National Emergency Library removed the waitlists of all books in its Open Library collection and allowed any number of digital copies of a book to be downloaded as an encrypted file that would be unusable after two weeks, asserting that this unlimited borrowing was a reasonable exception under the national emergency to allow educational functions to continue since physical libraries and bookstores were forced to be shuttered.<ref name="vox open library"/> The Authors Guild, the Association of American Publishers, the National Writers Union, and others argued that this allowed unlimited copyright infringement and denied revenues from distribution of authorized digital copies of books to authors who also needed relief during the COVID-19 national emergency.<ref name="vox open library"/> Though the Open Library asserted that the copies of entire books in e-book format were still encrypted and the unlimited borrowing was for educational purposes, the National Writers Union asserted that images of each page of each book could still be accessed on the Web without encryption or other controls.<ref name="National Writers Union"/><ref>{{cite web |last1=Hasbrouck |first1=Edward |title=Internet Archive removes controls on "lending" of bootleg e-books |date=24 March 2020 |url=https://nwu.org/internet-archive-removes-controls-on-lending-of-bootleg-e-books/ |publisher=National Writers Union |access-date=2020-05-07}}</ref>

Four major publishers—[[Hachette Book Group|Hachette]], [[Penguin Random House]], [[Wiley (publisher)|John Wiley & Sons]], and [[HarperCollins]], all members of the [[Association of American Publishers]]—filed a lawsuit in the [[United States District Court for the Southern District of New York|Southern New York Federal District Court]] against the Internet Archive in June 2020, asserting the Open Library project violated numerous copyrights.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Publishers Are Taking the Internet to Court|url=https://www.thenation.com/article/society/publishers-are-taking-the-internet-to-court/|date=2020-09-10|first=Maria|last=Bustillos|work=The Nation}}</ref> In their suit, the publishers claimed "Without any license or any payment to authors or publishers, [the Internet Archive] scans print books, uploads these illegally scanned books to its servers, and distributes verbatim digital copies of the books in whole via public-facing websites. With just a few clicks, any Internet-connected user can download complete digital copies of in-copyright books from [the] defendant."<ref>{{cite web | url = https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/1/21277036/internet-archive-publishers-lawsuit-open-library-ebook-lending | title = Publishers sue Internet Archive over Open Library ebook lending | first = Russell | last = Brandom | date = 2020-06-01 |access-date = 2020-06-01 | work = [[The Verge]] }}</ref> The publishers were represented by the law firms [[Davis Wright Tremaine]] and [[Oppenheim + Zebrak]].<ref>{{cite news |title=Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive for Systematic Mass Scanning and Distribution of Literary Works |url=https://publishers.org/news/publishers-file-suit-against-internet-archive-for-systematic-mass-scanning-and-distribution-of-literary-works/ |work=AAP |date=2020-06-01}}</ref> The Internet Archive ended the National Emergency Library on June 16, 2020, instead of the intended June 30 date, and requested the publishers to "call off their costly assault".<ref>{{cite web | url = https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/06/internet-archive-ends-emergency-library-early-to-appease-publishers/ | title = Internet Archive ends "emergency library" early to appease publishers | first= Timothy | last= Lee | date = 2020-06-11 | access-date = 2020-06-14 | work = [[Ars Technica]] }}</ref> In July 2022, both parties filed requests for [[summary judgement]]. A first hearing was held on March 20, 2023.<ref>{{cite web |last=Albanese |first=Andrew |date=February 21, 2023 |url=https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/publisher-news/article/91587-oral-argument-set-in-internet-archive-copyright-case.html |title=Oral Argument Set in Internet Archive Copyright Case |website=Publishers Weekly}}</ref> A summary judgement was issued March 24, 2023, in favor of the plaintiffs.