Search the Community

The feed offers a close-up look of how microfiche — the sheets of films that store multiple documents — are digitized and uploaded to the Archive. If you’ve ever wondered how the Internet Archive uploads all the physical documents on its site, now you can get a behind-the-scenes look at the process. The Internet Archive launched a new YouTube livestream that shows the digitization of microfiche in real time — complete with some relaxing, lo-fi beats. Microfiche is a sheet of film that contains multiple images of miniaturized documents. It’s an old form of storing newspapers, court documents, government records, and other important documents. The Internet Archive uses these microfiche cards to digitize and upload documents to its online library. The livestream shows a close-up look at one of the five microfiche digitization stations at the organization’s Richmond, California location, along with a look at the document that it’s working on. App maker Sophia Tung, who created a LoFi music livestream showing Waymo’s robotaxis returning to their parking lot, also set up the microfiche livestream for the Internet Archive. “Operators feed microfiche cards beneath a high-resolution camera, which captures multiple detailed images of each sheet,” Chris Freeland, the Internet Archive’s director of library services, writes in a post on the site. “Software stitches these images together, after which other team members use automated tools to identify and crop up to 100 individual pages per card.” From there, the Internet Archive processes the pages, makes them text-searchable, and then uploads them to its public collections. The livestream runs from Monday through Friday from 10:30AM ET to 6:30PM ET. “During the day, you’ll see scanners working on custom machines to digitize all the microfiche in the world,” Tung says. “During the off hours, you can also see everything else that the Archive has to offer, like silent films in the public domain or historical pictures from NASA.” Source Hope you enjoyed this news post. Thank you for appreciating my time and effort posting news every day for many years. News posts... 2023: 5,800+ | 2024: 5,700+ | 2025 (till end of April): 1,811 RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend

The Internet Archive's 'Great 78 Project' digitizes historical recordings to preserve musical heritage, but in 2023 the initiative led to major record labels filing a copyright lawsuit. The financial stakes soared last month when the labels proposed to update their claim to $693 million in statutory damages. A recent filing suggests that due to significant progress in settlement discussions, it may not come to that. The Internet Archive is widely known for its Wayback Machine, which preserves copies of the web for future generations. These archiving efforts, which started decades ago, will become more valuable over time. The same could apply to IA’s other projects, including the digitization of old books and records. Seven years ago, the Archive began archiving the sounds of 78rpm gramophone records, a format that is obsolete today. In addition to capturing their unique audio characteristics, including all ‘crackles and hisses’, this saves unique recordings for future generations before the vinyl or shellac disintegrates due to age. The ‘Great 78 Project‘ received praise from curators, historians, and music fans but not all music industry insiders were happy with it. Several record labels including Sony and UMG, sued the Internet Archive for copyright infringement in federal court in 2023. Labels Seek $693 Million in Damages Last year, IA responded to these allegations with a motion to dismiss. According to the Archive, many of the claims were simply too late, as they supposedly pointed to infringements that occurred over three years ago. The record labels claimed they were aware of this; the RIAA sent a cease and desist letter on their behalf but took no further action at the time. The U.S. federal court in California disagreed. After reviewing the positions from both sides, Judge Maxine Chesney concluded that it wasn’t clear that the statute of limitations had expired for all works, as the RIAA’s letter didn’t mention any specific infringements. The case moved forward and last month the music labels requested permission to file a second amended complaint, which significantly raises the stakes. This updated version includes 4,624 works that were allegedly infringed by the Great 78 Project, as opposed to the 2,749 recordings listed in the original complaint. The music companies request the maximum statutory damages of $150,000 per work for each of these recordings, increasing potential damages to an astronomical $693 million. Some of the recordings Progress in Settlement Negotiations The amended complaint has yet to be accepted by the court, but recent filings suggest that it may not get to that. Apparently, both camps have been engaged in settlement discussions that could potentially result in an alternative resolution. In a joint filing, the parties asked the court to pause the lawsuit for thirty days so they can work on finalizing a deal. No terms are mentioned, but a resolution outside of court seems realistic. Specifically, IA and the music labels state that they have “made significant progress in settlement discussions” and are “optimistic that settlement discussions may be successful and that this case can be dismissed.” From the joint stipulation The court granted the request and stayed the case for thirty days, canceling a hearing that was planned for Friday. If a settlement is reached, the case can be dismissed; if not, the parties will have to propose a new schedule. At the time of writing, the Great 78 Project remains online. While several recordings have been removed since the lawsuit was filed, including a copy of Bing Crosby’s White Christmas, many others remain accessible. It’s not clear what type of settlement the parties have in mind, but the labels will likely insist that all allegedly infringing content is removed. The Internet Archive, in turn, will likely try to avoid any substantial damages. — A copy of the joint stipulation and the proposed order to stay the case for thirty days, granted on April 4th, is available here (pdf). A copy of the proposed amended complaint with the 4,624 works can be found here (pdf) Source Hope you enjoyed this news post. Thank you for appreciating my time and effort posting news every day for many years. News posts... 2023: 5,800+ | 2024: 5,700+ | 2025 (till end of March): 1,357 RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend

One of the most popular and well-liked websites for getting access to free books, movies, and more is now back online in a limited capacity. The Internet Archive, which was taken down due to a cyber attack earlier in October, was restored on Monday evening. The bad news, at least for now, is that the site is available only in a read-only mode. In other words, no one can upload new content to the site, at least for the moment. In a blog post offering an update on the site's status, it said that other features like borrowing and reviewing content, and its interlibrary loan service are still not available. It added: The organizers of the non-profit Internet Archive site took it down, along with other sites under its umbrella, earlier this month after hackers breached its servers. They ended up accessing 31 million accounts, including personal info like user names, email addresses, and encrypted passwords. Since then the site's team has been working to restore its services. Last week, it brought back the popular Wayback Machine site, which lets users check the past content on websites, both current and shut down. Currently, the Wayback Machine site is also in a read-only mode. Also last week, another site run by Internet Archive, Archive-It, was brought back online, but again in a read-only mode. At the time of this writing, there's no word when full services, including the uploading of new content, will be enabled on the Internet Archive site or its sister sites. Source Hope you enjoyed this news post. Thank you for appreciating my time and effort posting news every day for many years. 2023: Over 5,800 news posts | 2024 (till end of September): 4,292 news posts RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend

The Internet Archive was breached again, this time on their Zendesk email support platform after repeated warnings that threat actors stole exposed GitLab authentication tokens. Since last night, BleepingComputer has received numerous messages from people who received replies to their old Internet Archive removal requests, warning that the organization has been breached as they did not correctly rotate their stolen authentication tokens. "It's dispiriting to see that even after being made aware of the breach weeks ago, IA has still not done the due diligence of rotating many of the API keys that were exposed in their gitlab secrets," reads an email from the threat actor. "As demonstrated by this message, this includes a Zendesk token with perms to access 800K+ support tickets sent to [email protected] since 2018." "Whether you were trying to ask a general question, or requesting the removal of your site from the Wayback Machine your data is now in the hands of some random guy. If not me, it'd be someone else." Internet Archive Zendesk emails sent by the threat actor Source: BleepingComputer The email headers in these emails also pass all DKIM, DMARC, and SPF authentication checks, proving they were sent by an authorized Zendesk server at 192.161.151.10. Internet Archive Zendesk email headers Source: BleepingComputer These emails come after BleepingComputer repeatedly tried to warn the Internet Archive that their source code was stolen through a GitLab authentication token that was exposed online for almost two years. Exposed GitLab authentication tokens On October 9th, BleepingComputer reported that Internet Archive was hit by two different attacks at once last week—a data breach where the site's user data for 33 million users was stolen and a DDoS attack by a pro-Palestinian group named SN_BlackMeta. While both attacks occurred over the same period, they were conducted by different threat actors. However, many outlets incorrectly reported that SN_BlackMeta was behind the breach rather than just the DDoS attacks. JavaScript alert on Internet Archive warning about the breach Source: BleepingComputer This misreporting frustrated the threat actor behind the actual data breach, who contacted BleepingComputer through an intermediary to claim credit for the attack and explain how they breached the Internet Archive. The threat actor told BleepingComputer that the initial breach of Internet Archive started with them finding an exposed GitLab configuration file on one of the organization's development servers, services-hls.dev.archive.org. BleepingComputer was able to confirm that this token has been exposed since at least December 2022, with it rotating multiple times since then. Exposed Internet Archive GitLab authentication token Source: BleepingComputer The threat actor says this GitLab configuration file contained an authentication token allowing them to download the Internet Archive source code. The hacker say that this source code contained additional credentials and authentication tokens, including the credentials to Internet Archive's database management system. This allowed the threat actor to download the organization's user database, further source code, and modify the site. The threat actor claimed to have stolen 7TB of data from the Internet Archive but would not share any samples as proof. However, now we know that the stolen data also included the API access tokens for Internet Archive's Zendesk support system. BleepingComputer attempted contact the Internet Archive numerous times, as recently as on Friday, offering to share what we knew about how the breach occurred and why it was done, but we never received a response. Breached for cyber street cred After the Internet Archive was breached, conspiracy theories abounded about why they were attacked. Some said Israel did it, the United States government, or corporations in their ongoing battle with the Internet Archive over copyright infringement. However, the Internet Archive was not breached for political or monetary reasons but simply because the threat actor could. There is a large community of people who traffic in stolen data, whether they do it for money by extorting the victim, selling it to other threat actors, or simply because they are collectors of data breaches. This data is often released for free to gain cyber street cred, increasing their reputation among other threat actors in this community, as they all compete for who has the most significant and most publicized attacks. In the case of the Internet Archive, there was no money to be made by trying to extort the organization. However, as a well-known and extremely popular website, it definitely boosted a person's reputation amongst this community. While no one has publicly claimed this breach, BleepingComputer was told it was done while the threat actor was in a group chat with others, with many receiving some of the stolen data. This database is now likely being traded amongst other people in the data breach community, and we will likely see it leaked for free in the future on hacking forums like Breached. Source RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend Hope you enjoyed this news post. Thank you for appreciating my time and effort posting news every day for many years. 2023: Over 5,800 news posts | 2024 (till end of September): 4,292 news posts

Internet Archive's "The Wayback Machine" has suffered a data breach after a threat actor compromised the website and stole a user authentication database containing 31 million unique records. News of the breach began circulating Wednesday afternoon after visitors to archive.org began seeing a JavaScript alert created by the hacker, stating that the Internet Archive was breached. "Have you ever felt like the Internet Archive runs on sticks and is constantly on the verge of suffering a catastrophic security breach? It just happened. See 31 million of you on HIBP!," reads a JavaScript alert shown on the compromised archive.org site. JavaScript alert shown on Archive.org Source: BleepingComputer The text "HIBP" refers to is the Have I Been Pwned data breach notification service created by Troy Hunt, with whom threat actors commonly share stolen data to be added to the service. Hunt told BleepingComputer that the threat actor shared the Internet Archive's authentication database nine days ago and it is a 6.4GB SQL file named "ia_users.sql." The database contains authentication information for registered members, including their email addresses, screen names, password change timestamps, Bcrypt-hashed passwords, and other internal data. The most recent timestamp on the stolen records was ta is September 28th, 2024, likely when the database was stolen. Hunt says there are 31 million unique email addresses in the database, with many subscribed to the HIBP data breach notification service. The data will soon be added to HIBP, allowing users to enter their email and confirm if their data was exposed in this breach. The data was confirmed to be real after Hunt contacted users listed in the databases, including cybersecurity researcher Scott Helme, who permitted BleepingComputer to share his exposed record. 9887370, [email protected],$2a$10$Bho2e2ptPnFRJyJKIn5BiehIDiEwhjfMZFVRM9fRCarKXkemA3PxuScottHelme,2020-06-25,2020-06-25,[email protected],2020-06-25 13:22:52.7608520,\N0\N\N@scotthelme\N\N\N Helme confirmed that the bcrypt-hashed password in the data record matched the brcrypt-hashed password stored in his password manager. He also confirmed that the timestamp in the database record matched the date when he last changed the password in his password manager. Password manager entry for archive.org Source: Scott Helme Hunt says he contacted the Internet Archive three days ago and began a disclosure process, stating that the data would be loaded into the service in 72 hours, but he has not heard back since. It is not known how the threat actors breached the Internet Archive and if any other data was stolen. Earlier today, the Internet Archive suffered a DDoS attack, which has now been claimed by the BlackMeta hacktivist group, who says they will be conducting additional attacks. BleepingComputer contacted the Internet Archive with questions about the attack, but no response was immediately available. Source RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend Hope you enjoyed this news post. Thank you for appreciating my time and effort posting news every day for many years. 2023: Over 5,800 news posts | 2024 (till end of September): 4,292 news posts

On October 9, the popular Internet Archive site became inaccessible. In a message on the site's main page, the site confirmed that it had been hit by a cyber attack. Brewster Kahle, the founder of Internet Archive, confirmed in a post on X that there was a breach of user names, email addresses, and encrypted passwords. 31 million accounts were affected. Earlier this morning, one part of the Internet Archive, the Wayback Machine website history service, finally came back online. In a new message on his X account, Kahle stated the site is currently in a read-only mode. That means users cannot capture the image of a website in its current state and upload it to the Wayback Machine. Kahle mentioned that the site could be "suspended again" if the Wayback Machine site needed further maintenance. The main Internet Archive site, and other sites affiliated with it, are still not working for now, and there's no word on when they might be back up and running. Less than a month ago, the Internet Archive announced a major partnership with Google. The idea was that people who used Google Search could directly find links to web pages that were stored on the Wayback Machine's site with its "About this Result” option. Google previously supported access to earlier versions of websites in search results with its own cached pages feature. However, that feature was removed from Google Search earlier this year. Kahle posted another message earlier this past weekend that email for the site was back up, along with "contract crawls for National Libraries". Source RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend Hope you enjoyed this news post. Thank you for appreciating my time and effort posting news every day for many years. 2023: Over 5,800 news posts | 2024 (till end of September): 4,292 news posts

Major book publishers continue their legal crusade against Internet Archive's scan-and-lend library, hoping to shut it down for good. IA's appeal previously received support from authors and copyright scholars. The publishers, however, have some heavyweight backers too. New amicus briefs are signed by former U.S. politicians, former judges, and legal scholars. Industry groups such as the MPA and RIAA also rally behind the publishers. The Internet Archive (IA) is a non-profit organization that aims to preserve digital history for generations to come. The digital library is a staunch supporter of a free and open Internet and began meticulously archiving the web over a quarter century ago. In addition to archiving the web, IA also operates a library that offers a broad collection of digital media, including books. Staying true to the centuries-old library concept, IA patrons can also borrow books that are scanned and digitized in-house. Publishers vs. Internet Archive The self-scanning service offered by the Internet Archive (IA) differs from the licensing agreements entered into by other libraries. Not all publishers are happy with IA’s approach, resulting in a major legal battle two years ago. Publishers Hachette, HarperCollins, John Wiley, and Penguin Random House filed a lawsuit, equating IA’s controlled digital lending (CDL) operation to copyright infringement. Earlier this year a New York federal court concluded that the library is indeed liable for copyright infringement. The court’s decision effectively put an end to IA’s self-scanning library, at least for books from the publishers in suit. However, IA is not letting this go without a fight and in December the non-profit filed its opening brief at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, hoping to reverse the judgment. High Profile Support The importance of this legal battle is illustrated by the large number of amicus briefs that are filed by third parties. Previously, IA received support from copyright scholars and the Authors Alliance, among others. A few days ago, another round of amicus came in at the Court of Appeals, this time to back the publishers who filed their reply last week. In more than a handful of filings, prominent individuals and organizations urge the Appeals Court not to reverse the district court ruling, arguing that this would severely hamper the interests of copyright holders. The briefs include positions from industry groups such as the MPA, RIAA, IFPI, Copyright Alliance, the Authors Guild, various writers unions, and many others. Legal scholars, professors, and former government officials, also chimed in. RIAA, MPA, et al. The RIAA and MPA submitted an amicus brief together with the NMPA and the News Media Alliance. These industry groups draw a parallel between the impact Napster and BitTorrent had on music and movie sales, and the threat IA’s self-scanning library poses today. “Digital piracy has inflicted a huge economic toll on those industries and, by extension, on their ability to invest in new creative works and the artists who make them. Internet Archive’s theory of fair use represents a threat just as grave.” Industry groups fear that if the Internet Archive is allowed to digitize and lend books, it could set a precedent for other forms of media. For instance, if services were able to lend music, movies, or news media to the general public, these industries might face similar challenges. “Deeming Internet Archive’s mass reproduction and distribution program to be fair use would no doubt embolden not only Internet Archive itself but also other online platforms to freely ‘lend’ all types of copyrighted works to the public in digital formats,” they write. “That would catastrophically harm the digital markets on which the music industry, the movie and television industry, the news industry, and similar industries depend to profitably create and distribute their works—and would thereby undermine the incentive for the creation of new works that copyright law exists to protect.” According to the amici, there is nothing fair about IA’s digital library; instead, they see it as “unambiguous copyright infringement.” Copyright Experts, Professors, and Lawmakers A second amicus brief is submitted by more than a dozen professors and scholars of copyright and intellectual property law. They stress that IA’s practice should not be seen as “transformative” fair use, arguing that the library offers a “substitution” for books that are legally offered by the publishers. This sets the case apart from current legal precedents including the Google Books case, where Google’s mass use of copyrighted books was deemed fair use. “IA’s exploitation of copyrighted books is thus the polar opposite of the copying that was found to be transformative in Google Books and HathiTrust. IA offers no ‘utility-expanding’ searchable database to its subscribers. What it does offer is access to full-text books as a clearly competing substitute for the versions licensed by book publishers,” the legal scholars write. Another amicus brief adds more heavyweight support for the publishers. This includes former judges and two dozen government officials and lawmakers, including Lamar Smith, former Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, and Bob Goodlatte, former Chair of the House Judiciary Committee. This brief also rejects the Internet Archive’s fair use arguments, framing the library as a threat instead. “IA does not further the public interest, but rather undermines incentives to create and disseminate books that benefit society. Thus, its actions are decidedly not protected by fair use,” their brief reads. IA and AI The final amicus brief we want to highlight comes from a broad collection international and regional trade groups from outside the United States. These include the International Publishers Association, the International Video Federation, and the Association of Canadian Publishers. These groups also reject the fair use arguments. They stress that in addition to directly competing with the interests of publishers, IA’s library is also an indirect ‘artificial intelligence’ threat as the digitized books can be used as AI training material. “The Internet Archive is an obvious source of high-quality works for AI training since these works have been professionally edited and improved by publishers. Entering the terms ‘Internet Archive DRM’ into any search engine results in a number of links to software tools that remove the Internet Archive’s DRM technology along with instructions on how to use it. “Even if AI training is ultimately determined by U.S. courts to not be a fair use, Amici fear that the Internet Archive’s CDL collection has already been used as an AI training tool,” the international trade groups add. In summary, the book publishers have plenty of external support for their legal battle. However, it remains to be seen whether any of these amici, including those in favor of IA, will influence the eventual outcome of the appeal. — Below is an overview of the amicus briefs that were filed over the past few days, all in support of the publishers. – RIAA, MPA, NMPA, News Media Alliance. – Former government officials, former judges, and intellectual property scholars. – Copyright Alliance. – Various organizations that represent the interests of writers and other creators. – Professors and scholars of copyright and intellectual property law. – International and regional trade bodies. Source

A copyright lawsuit filed by several major publishers puts the future of the Internet Archive's scan-and-lend library at risk. In a recent appeal, the non-profit organization argued that its solution is protected fair use and critical to preserving digital books. This position is shared by copyright scholars, the Authors Alliance, and other supporters now backing IA in court. The Internet Archive (IA) is a non-profit organization that aims to preserve digital history for generations to come. The digital library is a staunch supporter of a free and open Internet and began meticulously archiving the web over a quarter century ago. In addition to archiving the web, IA also operates a library that offers a broad collection of digital media, including books. Staying true to the centuries-old library concept, IA patrons can also borrow books that are scanned and digitized in-house. Publishers vs. Internet Archive The self-scanning service is different from the licensing deals other libraries enter into. Not all publishers are happy with IA’s approach which triggered a massive legal battle two years ago. Publishers Hachette, HarperCollins, John Wiley, and Penguin Random House filed a lawsuit, equating IA’s controlled digital lending (CDL) operation to copyright infringement. Earlier this year a New York Federal court concluded that the library is indeed liable for copyright infringement. The Court’s decision effectively put an end to IA’s self-scanning library, at least for books from the publishers in suit. However, IA is not letting this go without a fight and last week the non-profit filed its opening brief at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, hoping to reverse the judgment. Support from Authors Alliance IA doesn’t stand alone in this legal battle. As the week progressed, several parties submitted amicus curiae briefs to the court supporting IA’s library. This includes the Authors Alliance. The Authors Alliance represents thousands of members, including two Nobel Laureates, a Poet Laureate of the United States, and three MacArthur Fellows. All benefit from making their work available to a broad public. If IA’s lending operation is outlawed, the authors fear that their books would become less accessible, allowing the major publishers to increase their power and control. The Alliance argues that the federal court failed to take the position of authors into account, focusing heavily on the publishers instead. However, the interests of these groups are not always aligned. “Many authors strongly oppose the actions of the publishers in bringing this suit because they support libraries and their ability to innovate. Authors rely on libraries to reach readers and many are proud to have their works preserved and made available through libraries in service of the public. “Because these publishers have such concentrated market power […], authors that want to reach wide audiences rarely have the negotiating power to retain sufficient control from publishers to independently authorize public access like that at issue here,” the Alliance adds. This critique from the authors is not new. Hundreds of writers came out in support of IA’s digital book library at an earlier stage of this lawsuit, urging the publishers to drop their case. The publishers didn’t listen to these concerns. They believe that IA’s library is disrupting the “ecosystem” and “market equilibrium” of ebook sales. However, the Authors Alliance now counters that the system is already out of whack, as publishers enjoy too much power. “That ecosystem has long been out of balance, due not to the IA’s activities, but to these publishers’ leveraging of their power to insist on a marketplace in which they exercise almost absolute control over access, preservation, and research,” the Alliance notes. According to the Authors Alliance, IA’s digital ebook library is a prime example of a service that should be permitted to operate as fair use, as it benefits both writers and readers. Copyright Scholars Back IA In a separate amicus brief, several prominent legal and copyright scholars, many of whom hold professor titles, raise similar arguments. They believe that IA’s lending system is not that different from the physical libraries that are an integral part of culture. “Libraries have always been free under copyright law to lend materials they own as they see fit. This is a feature of copyright law, not a bug,” the brief reads. What is new here, is that publishers now assert full control over how their digital books are treated. Instead of allowing libraries to own copies, they have to license them, which makes it impossible to add them to the permanent archive. “The major publishers refuse to sell digital books to libraries, forcing them to settle for restrictive licenses of digital content rather than genuine ownership. Moreover, publishers insist they can prevent libraries from scanning their lawfully purchased physical books and lending the resulting digital copies.” Some of the names included The scholars see IA’s library as fair use and note that the lower court ignored the long history of nonprofit library lending. It placed too much emphasis on the interests of publishers, largely ignoring the public benefits. More Support Comes In Thus far, the Court of Appeals has received four amicus briefs in support of IA’s library. In addition to the two mentioned above, others include a joint submission from the Center for Democracy & Technology, Library Freedom Project and Public Knowledge. These groups also stress that the court focused too heavily on the publishers’ bottom line, while failing to properly take the rights of consumers into account. “The district court should have more carefully considered the socially beneficial purposes of library-led CDL, which include protecting patrons’ ability to access digital materials privately, and the harm to copyright’s public benefit of disallowing libraries from using CDL.” This sentiment is shared in the fourth amicus brief from information scholars and historians Kevin L. Smith and Will Cross, who also argue that publishers have too much power as it is. The scholars believe that IA’s scan-and-lend library is a prime example of fair use, placing the interests of all stakeholders more closely into balance. “Here, market failure is evident: one side (the publishers) has such a dominant position that they control all the terms of any sale, without any countervailing forces to balance the market. “Fair use was designed to address precisely this type of market failure. Thus, CDL should be upheld under fair use. Otherwise, a decision against CDL would harm the public mission of libraries and perpetuate the existing market failure,” they add. With no shortage of support for the Internet Archive, the stakes of this legal battle are clear. Thus far, the publishers have yet to file their response, but it’s likely that they will also receive support from third parties. — The amicus briefs cited in this article are all available below (pdf) – Authors Alliance – Copyright scholars – CDT, Library Freedom Project, and Public Knowledge – Kevin L. Smith and Will Cross Source

Internet Archive has filed its opening brief in its appeal of a court ruling which found its digital lending program copyright-infringing. The Archive believes the decision should be reversed on the grounds that its lending activities amount to fair use. Founder Brewster Kahle believes the legal battle is vital for the future of all libraries in the United States and around the world. In 2020, publishers Hachette, HarperCollins, John Wiley and Penguin Random House sued the Internet Archive (IA) for copyright infringement, equating its ‘Open Library’ to a pirate site. IA’s library is a non-profit operation that scans physical books, which can then be lent out to patrons in an ebook format. Patrons can also borrow books that are scanned and digitized in-house, with technical restrictions that prevent copying. Staying true to the centuries-old library concept, only one patron at a time can rent a digital copy of a physical book for a limited period. Mass Copyright Infringement or Fair Use? Not all rightsholders are happy with IA’s scanning and lending activities. The publishers are not against libraries per se, nor do they object to ebook lending, but ‘authorized’ libraries typically obtain an official license or negotiate specific terms. The Internet Archive has no license. The publishers see IA’s library as a rogue operation that engages in willful mass copyright infringement, directly damaging their bottom line. As such, they want it taken down permanently. The Internet Archive wholeheartedly disagreed with the copyright infringement allegations; it offers a vital service to the public, the Archive said, as it built its legal defense on protected fair use. After weighing the arguments from both sides, New York District Court Judge John Koeltl sided with the publishers. In March, the court granted their motion for summary judgment, which effectively means that the library is indeed liable for copyright infringement. The judgment and associated permanent injunction effectively barred the library from reproducing or distributing digital copies of the ‘covered books’ without permission from rightsholders. These restrictions were subject to an eventual appeal, which was announced shortly thereafter. Internet Archive Files Appeal Brief Late last week, IA filed its opening brief at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, asking it to reverse the lower court’s judgment. The library argues that the court erred by rejecting its fair use defense. Whether IA has a fair use defense depends on how the four relevant factors are weighed. According to the lower court, these favor the publishers but the library vehemently disagrees. On the contrary, it believes that its service promotes the creation and sharing of knowledge, which is a core purpose of copyright. “This Court should reverse and hold that IA’s controlled digital lending is fair use. This practice, like traditional library lending, furthers copyright’s goal of promoting public availability of knowledge without harming authors or publishers,” the brief reads. A fair use analysis has to weigh the interests of both sides. The lower court did so, but IA argues that it reached the wrong conclusions, failing to properly account for the “tremendous public benefits” controlled digital lending offers. No Competition One of the key fair use factors at stake is whether IA’s lending program affects (i.e., threatens) the traditional ebook lending market. IA uses expert witnesses to argue that there’s no financial harm and further argues that its service is substantially different from the ebook licensing market. IA offers access to digital copies of books, which is similar to licensed libraries. However, the non-profit organization argues that its lending program is not a substitute as it offers a fundamentally different service. “For example, libraries cannot use ebook licenses to build permanent collections. But they can use licensing to easily change the selection of ebooks they offer to adapt to changing interests,” IA writes. The licensing models make these libraries more flexible. However, they have to rely on the books offered by commercial aggregators and can’t add these digital copies to their archives. “Controlled digital lending, by contrast, allows libraries to lend only books from their own permanent collections. They can preserve and lend older editions, maintaining an accurate historical record of books as they were printed. “They can also provide access that does not depend on what Publishers choose to make available. But libraries must own a copy of each book they lend, so they cannot easily swap one book for another when interest or trends change,” IA adds. Stakes are High The arguments highlighted here are just a fraction of the 74-page opening brief, which goes into much more detail and ultimately concludes that the district court’s judgment should be reversed. In a recent blog post, IA founder Brewster Kahle writes that if the lower court’s verdict stands, books can’t be preserved for future generations in digital form, in the same way that paper versions have been archived for centuries. “This lawsuit is about more than the Internet Archive; it is about the role of all libraries in our digital age. This lawsuit is an attack on a well-established practice used by hundreds of libraries to provide public access to their collections. “The disastrous lower court decision in this case holds implications far beyond our organization, shaping the future of all libraries in the United States and unfortunately, around the world,” Kahle concludes. — A copy of the Internet Archive’s opening brief, filed at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, is available here (pdf) Source

The Internet Archive's online book lending library will be severely limited to avoid copyright liability. The library and book publishers have agreed the terms of a judgment that leaves one crucial question open for the court. While restrictions are unavoidable, for now, the Internet Archive is eager to reverse the court's liability ruling on appeal. In 2020, publishers Hachette, HarperCollins, John Wiley and Penguin Random House sued the Internet Archive (IA) for copyright infringement, equating its ‘Open Library’ to a pirate site. IA’s library is a non-profit organization that scans physical books, which can then be lent out to patrons in an ebook format. Patrons can also borrow books that are scanned and digitized in-house, with technical restrictions that prevent copying. Staying true to the centuries-old library concept, only one patron at a time can rent a digital copy of a physical book. These restrictions were temporarily loosened at the height of the Covid epidemic when IA launched the National Emergency Library. Mass Copyright Infringement or Fair Use? Patrons happily use the library but not all rightsholders are happy with IA’s scanning and lending activities. The publishers are not against libraries per se, nor do they object to ebook lending, but ‘authorized’ libraries typically obtain an official license or negotiate specific terms. The Internet Archive has no such license. As such, the publishers see IA’s library as a rogue operation that engages in willful mass copyright infringement, directly damaging their bottom line. As such, they want it permanently taken down. “Without any license or any payment to authors or publishers, IA 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,” their complaint reads. The Internet Archive wholeheartedly disagreed with the copyright infringement allegations. Stressing that the library offers a vital service, Internet Archive’s defense centered on the legal concept of transformative fair use. Liability Ruling and Consent Judgment After weighing the arguments from both sides, New York District Court Judge John Koeltl sided with the publishers. In March, the court granted their motion for summary judgment, which effectively means that the library is indeed liable for copyright infringement. The court instructed both sides to come up with a consent judgment to determine how the ruling would be reflected in IA’s lending program. After several weeks of negotiations, a proposed agreement was submitted to the court last Friday. The judgment comes with a permanent injunction that effectively bars the library from reproducing or distributing digital copies of the ‘covered books’ without permission from rightsholders. These restrictions are subject to appeal, which means that the agreement could be rendered moot if IA wins its appeal, which is currently pending. Covered Books? The book publishers and IA agree on nearly all aspects of the proposed judgment except one. The parties still disagree on the term ‘covered books’ and leave this question open for the court. The publishers would like all of their copyrighted works to be covered by the injunction, including those that are not available in ebook format. IA, on the other hand, believes that digitizing physical books is fair game if the publishers don’t offer a digital version. “This case involved only works that the Publishers make available as ebooks and so the scope of any injunction should be limited accordingly,” IA explains. The publishers disagree and stress that the court has already made it clear that IA is not allowed to digitize and distribute print books en masse without permission. Publishers should also have the right not to release ebooks, if they prefer. “Of key significance, the law is clear that the right to decide whether or not to publish a book in electronic format belongs to its authors and publishers, not IA,” the publishers write. Next Chapter The court will now have to decide how broad the definition “covered books” should be. In their proposed judgment, the parties leave this question open, as shown below. What’s clear, however, is that IA must make changes to its lending program. The organization says that it will communicate these to its patrons, once the judgment is approved. At the same time, the library also made clear that it will fight the underlying order, as it believes that libraries should be able to digitize and lend books outside the strict licensing ecosystem. “Libraries are under attack at unprecedented scale today, from book bans to defunding to overzealous lawsuits like the one brought against our library,” Internet Archive founder Brewster Kahle says. “These efforts are cutting off the public’s access to truth at a key time in our democracy. We must have strong libraries, which is why we are appealing this decision,” Kahle concludes. Meanwhile, IA has a new legal battle on its hands as the non-profit was sued by several prominent record labels on Friday. The companies accuse it of blatantly infringing copyrights in hundreds of thousands of sound recordings. — A copy of the proposed consent judgment submitted to the court on Friday is available here Source

Several major music labels, including Capitol, Sony, and UMG, sued the Internet Archive last year over its 'Great 78' phonograph archiving project. With hundreds of millions of dollars in potential damages at stake, IA filed a motion to dismiss, hoping to end the matter swiftly. The court, however, was not convinced. The non-profit Internet Archive (IA) aims to preserve history in a digital format for generations to come. The organization literally archives key parts of the Internet, copying older versions of websites to preserve them for future generations. This information becomes more and more valuable as time passes by. IA’s archiving work is not limited to websites either; it also helps to permanently archive video, software, games, and music. This includes efforts to digitally capture the unique sound of old gramophone music recordings, as its physical carriers are subject to decay and will eventually become unplayable. The Great 78 Project Six years ago, the Archive teamed up with other libraries and experts to archive the sounds of 78-rpm gramophone records, which are obsolete today. In addition to capturing their unique audio, including all crackles and hisses, this saves unique recordings for future generations before the vinyl or shellac disintegrates. The ‘Great 78 Project‘ received praise from curators, historians, and music fans. However, not all music industry insiders were happy with it, as the copying took place without obtaining permission from all rightsholders. The Great 78 Project Last summer, a group of major music labels including Capitol, Sony, and UMG, decided to take action. In a complaint filed at a U.S. federal court in California, they sued the Internet Archive, its founder Brewster Kale, the Kahle-Austin Foundation, and others who they believe are responsible “When Defendants exploit Plaintiffs’ sound recordings without authorization, neither Plaintiffs nor their artists see a dime. Not only does this harm Plaintiffs and the artists or their heirs by depriving them of compensation, but it undermines the value of music,” the labels wrote. With 2,749 recordings at stake, the potential statutory damages could run to more than $400 million. However, the Internet Archive sees things differently, believing that the ‘Great 78 Project’ is fair use. IA’s Motion to Dismiss Earlier this year, the IA defendants responded with a motion to dismiss. While fair use was mentioned, they argued that the lawsuit should be thrown out because it was filed too late. The defendants were already aware of the alleged infringements more than three years ago, which is past the three-year stature of limitations for copyright infringement. IA backed up this argument with a letter it received from the RIAA more than three years ago, which specifically complained about the ‘Great 78 Project’. That cease and desist notice didn’t list any specific recordings but referenced artists including Elvis Presley, Duke Ellington, and Billie Holiday. It further characterized IA as a platform that enables piracy on a massive scale, mentioning “thousands” of recordings. “Your unauthorized reproduction, distribution and public performance of these recordings is a plain violation of the RIAA member companies’ rights under the Classics Protection and Access Act (‘Classics Act’), 17 U.S.C. § 1401, and constitutes nothing less than piracy on a massive scale,” RIAA’s letter reads. According to the Archive, this clearly suggests that the labels, who are members of the RIAA, were aware of the issue more than three years before they filed their complaint. For this reason, it asked the court to dismiss the case. Court Denies IA’s Motion After reviewing IA’s arguments and the response from the record labels, U.S. District Court Judge Maxine Chesney denied the motion to dismiss. According to the Judge, it is not clear that the statute of limitations expired for all works. The fact that the RIAA’s letter didn’t mention any specific infringements plays a crucial role here. While the music companies were clearly aware of the ‘Great 78 Project’, the letter doesn’t show that they were aware of all specific infringing copies at the time. “[T]he letter on which defendants here rely does not identify any specific sound recording, let alone any of the Sound Recordings at Issue,” Judge Chesney writes. “Although, at a later stage of the proceedings, Internet Archive Defendants may be able to use the letter to show one or more of the alleged acts of infringement described in the [amended complaint] occurred outside the limitations period, such showing has not been made at the pleading stage.” Foundation’s Motion to Dismiss Fails Too In addition to the main IA defendants, the Kahle-Austin Foundation also filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint (AC). The foundation is a donor to the Internet Archive and argued that the record labels failed to show that it knew of the alleged infringements, let alone that it contributed to them. After reviewing the arguments from both sides, the court concludes that the Foundation’s motion to dismiss should be denied as well. The fact that the Foundation’s President, Brewster Kahle, also appears to be a driving force behind the Internet Archive’s ‘Great 78 Project’ plays a key role here. “[T]he AC alleges ‘Kahle established the Foundation as his and his wife’s preferred vehicle for funding his favored projects, including Internet Archive’, and that Kahle ‘create[d]’ Internet Archive’s Great 78 Project, which Kahle described in an article he wrote as ‘[a]ll good” and “[a]ll fun’. “In other words, the AC alleges that the purposes of the Foundation and the purposes of Kahle, the Foundation’s President, are one and the same,” Judge Chesney adds. Kahle’s central position is a reason not to dismiss the complaint against the Foundation at this point, as it suggests that the foundation was likely aware of the allegedly infringing activity, and many have contributed to it, according to the letter of the law. Based on these and other arguments, the court finds that it’s premature to dismiss any of the claims against the parties involved at this point. Of course, the case still has to be argued on its merits, and this ruling says nothing about other defenses, including the fair use arguments. — A copy of U.S. District Court Judge Maxine Chesney’s order on the motions to dismiss is available here (pdf) Source

The Internet Archive has taken the rather unusual step of sending a DMCA notice to protect the copyrights of book publishers and authors. The non-profit organization asked GitHub to remove a tool that can strip DRM from books in its library. The protective move is likely motivated by the ongoing legal troubles between the Archive and book publishers. The Internet Archive (IA) is a non-profit organization that aims to save the history of the Internet for generations to come. The digital library is a staunch supporter of a free and open Internet and began meticulously archiving the web over a quarter century ago. Today, IA has more than 800 billion pages in its archive and offers a broad collection of digital media, including books. Staying true to the centuries-old library concept, IA patrons can also borrow books that are scanned and digitized in-house, with technical restrictions that prevent copying. At least, that’s the idea. The self-scanning service is different from the licensing deals other libraries enter into. Not all publishers are happy with this scheme and when IA lifted its ‘one-digital-copy-per-patron’ policy at the start of the coronavirus pandemic, a massive lawsuit ensued. Publishers Hachette, HarperCollins, John Wiley and Penguin Random House sued IA, equating the Open Library’s lending operation to copyright infringement. Earlier this year a New York Federal court concluded that the library is indeed liable for copyright infringement. IA Sends DMCA Notice to Stop Book Piracy The scale of the damages in that case are yet to be determined but in light of the legal battle, we noticed an interesting DMCA takedown notice this week through which IA tries to protect the publishers. The Internet Archive sent a takedown request to GitHub, requesting the developer platform to remove a tool that circumvents industry-standard technical protection mechanisms for digital libraries. This “DeGouRou” software effectively allows patrons to save DRM-free copies of the books they borrow. “This DMCA complaint is about a tool made available on github which purports to circumvent technical protections in violation of the copyright act section 1201,” the notice reads. “I am reporting a Git which provides a tool specifically used to circumvent industry standard library TPMs which are used by Internet Archive, and other libraries, to permit patrons to borrow an encrypted book, read the encrypted book, and return an encrypted book.” Not Authorized Interestingly, an IA representative states that they are “not authorized by the copyright owners” to submit this takedown notice. Instead, IA is acting on its duty to prevent the unauthorized downloading of copyright-protected books. It’s quite unusual to see a party sending takedown notices without permission from the actual rightsholders. However, given the copyright liabilities IA faces, it makes sense that the organization is doing what it can to prevent more legal trouble. Permission or not, GitHub honored the takedown request. It removed all the DeGourou repositories that were flagged and took the code offline. DeGourou is ‘Archived’ Elsewhere The publishers are likely pleased to see IA acting in their interests. However, as we often see on a free and open Internet, taking something completely offline isn’t always straightforward. After GitHub removed the code, it soon popped up elsewhere. Apparently, some people are relentlessly trying to maintain an archive of the code in other places. A Reddit thread that was initially posted five months ago linked to DeGourou’s GitHub page. After that was taken down it moved to Replit instead, but that instance was also targeted with a DMCA notice. DeGourou has now moved to GitLab, for as long as it lasts. IA is clearly concerned about the potential copyright infringement implications of its library. The organization is currently finalizing a consent judgment with the publishers to establish the damages it owes in the earlier mentioned legal battle, while also leaving the door open for an appeal. Source

The Internet Archive's online book lending library is not protected by the fair use exception to copyright. Major book publishers successfully argued that the Archive's lending of scanned books amounts to copyright infringement. In a decision published Friday, a New York federal judge found that the Archive's fair use defenses weighed strongly against the digital book lending operation. In 2020, publishers Hachette, HarperCollins, John Wiley and Penguin Random House sued the Internet Archive (IA) for copyright infringement, equating its ‘Open Library’ to a pirate site. IA’s library is operated by a non-profit organization that scans physical books and then lends the digital copies to patrons in an ebook format. While ‘digital’ book lending is not uncommon, libraries typically loan out DRM-protected files after acquiring a license from publishers. In this case, IA sent physical books it owned to a scanning facility and made its own copies. Fair Use or Mass Copyright Infringement? These digital copies were subsequently loaned out to patrons, with IA ensuring that only one person at a time could access a single digital copy of a single physical book. IA previously sought summary judgment in its favor, arguing that a digital copy of a physical book ‘transforms’ the original work, with lending limits and the absence of profit also supporting a finding of fair use. In contrast, the publishers described IA’s library as a rogue operation engaging in willful mass copyright infringement. Claiming direct damage to their bottom line, the publishers’ lawsuit aimed to put an end to the “illegal” lending program once and for all. The publishers went on to request summary judgment and a declaration that this type of copying is a clear case of copyright infringement. Opinion and Order Earlier this week, the parties had the opportunity to back up their arguments during a New York Court hearing. District Court Judge John Koeltl questioned both sides on their summary judgment requests, before deliberating on his final decision. After weighing the arguments. Judge Koeltl published his opinion and order yesterday. His order clearly sides with the publishers, whose request for summary judgment was granted. IA’s fair use defense and summary judgment in its favor was denied. Courts typically weigh four factors when determining fair use. Judge Koeltl concludes that all four factors weigh strongly in favor of the publishers. Starting with the first factor – whether the use is transformative – the order stresses that IA failed to show that its book lending operation meets the standard. The fact that only one patron at a time can borrow a book is irrelevant to the fair use question, the order notes. “The crux of IA’s first-factor argument 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,” Judge Koetl writes. “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.” The court fails to see how IA’s operation transforms the original work. The fact that IA is a non-profit organization isn’t a strong defense either, as the lending program still allows IA to benefit through donations and other means, without obtaining an appropriate license from the publishers. “IA’s wholesale copying and unauthorized lending of digital copies of the Publishers’ print books does not transform the use of the books, and IA profits from exploiting the copyrighted material without paying the customary price,” Judge Koetl notes. Competing With Free? Profits and revenue are also relevant in determining the fourth fair use factor, which questions whether the library affects the original book market and existing revenues. IA argued that this isn’t the case, as sales volumes fail to show a negative correlation with its lending service. Unconvinced by the argument, Judge Koetl says that IA’s program amounts to direct competition for licensed alternatives. “In this case, there is a ‘thriving ebook licensing market for libraries’ in which the Publishers earn a fee whenever a library obtains one of their licensed ebooks from an aggregator like OverDrive. “This market generates at least tens of millions of dollars a year for the Publishers. And IA supplants the Publishers’ place in this market.” IA’s library offers a vastly cheaper alternative to licensed platforms, which allows libraries and the public to save money. However, it does so at the expense of the publishers and their authors, according to the court. “It is equally clear that if IA’s conduct becomes widespread, it will adversely affect the potential market for the Works in Suit,” Judge Koetl writes. IA is Liable for Copyright Infringement Since the remaining fair use factors weigh clearly in favor of the publishers, IA’s fair use defense fails. As a result, the court concludes that the Internet Archive is indeed liable for copyright infringement. The scale of the damages has yet to be established. IA asked for statutory damages to be remitted, citing its status as a nonprofit library. Judge Koeltl says that at this time, any decision on damages is premature. Based on this order, it’s clear that IA’s ebook lending library won’t be allowed to continue in its current form. That said, the Archive still has the option to appeal. In response to the order, IA’s Director of Open Libraries, Chris Freeland, confirmed that an appeal is forthcoming. “We will keep fighting for the traditional right of libraries to own, lend, and preserve books. We will be appealing the judgment and encourage everyone to come together as a community to support libraries against this attack by corporate publishers.” Internet Archive is Liable for Copyright Infringement, Court Rules

A copyright lawsuit filed by major book publishers against the Internet Archive is set to define the boundaries of digital book lending. The parties shared their positions at a New York federal court yesterday. The Internet Archive claims that its library is protected by fair use and does no harm to rightsholders. For their part, the book publishers see massive infringement and damages. In 2020, publishers Hachette, HarperCollins, John Wiley and Penguin Random House sued the Internet Archive (IA) for copyright infringement, equating its ‘Open Library’ to a pirate site. IA’s library is a non-profit organization that scans physical books, which can then be lent out to patrons in an ebook format. Staying true to the centuries-old library concept, only one patron at a time can get a copy. These restrictions were temporarily loosened at the height of the Covid epidemic when IA launched the National Emergency Library. Mass Copyright Infringement or Fair Use? The publishers see IA’s library as a rogue operation that engages in willful mass copyright infringement, directly damaging their bottom line. As such, they want it permanently taken down. “Without any license or any payment to authors or publishers, IA 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,” their complaint reads. The publishers are not against libraries per se, nor do they object to ebook lending. When lending digital content, ‘authorized’ libraries typically obtain a license or negotiate specific terms. The Internet Archive has no such license. The Internet Archive wholeheartedly disagrees with the copyright infringement allegations. Stressing that the library offers a vital service, Internet Archive’s defense centers on the legal concept of fair use. The Archive states that making a digital copy of a physical book ‘transforms’ the original work before it is loaned to one patron at a time. That would qualify as fair use, they argue, especially since there is no profit motive. Another factor in favor of fair use is the fact that there are numerous benefits to the public at large. There is also no evidence to show that the book publishers’ sales or traditional licensing revenues were impacted. New York Court Hearing Over the past two-and-a-half years, the parties have gone back and forth in court, disputing each other’s arguments. This eventually resulted in contrasting motions for summary judgment, with both sides hoping for a ruling in their favor ahead of the trial. Yesterday, IA and the publishers had the opportunity to back up their positions during a New York District Court hearing. Both parties laid out their cases and were questioned by District Court John Koeltl. The publishers’ attorney Elizabeth McNamara pointed out that the IA strives to make all knowledge available for free, but doesn’t want to compensate rightsholders for their works. “IA does not want to pay authors or publishers to realize this grand scheme and they argue it can be excused from paying the customary fees because what they’re doing is in the public interest,” she said, quoted by The Register. The publishers’ attorney added that IA’s lending platform directly harms authors and publishers, but Judge Koeltl didn’t see any direct evidence of harm. IA’s attorney Joseph Gratz said evidence of harm doesn’t exist. “There’s no evidence that the publishers have lost a dime,” Gratz said, as quoted by Ars Technica. Unauthorized Reproductions The four-factor fair use test that applies in these cases isn’t straightforward, but a Reuters report highlights some interesting comments from Judge Koeltl. Koeltl stressed that libraries absolutely have the right to lend books that they own but in this case, IA goes a step further by making a digital copy, a reproduction of the original work. “You avoid the question of whether the library has the right to reproduce the book that it otherwise has the right to possess, which is really at the heart of the case,” Koeltl said, noting that “the publisher has a copyright right to control reproduction.” IA’s attorney responded by pointing out that the reproductions serve a ‘transformative’ purpose in this case, while adding that every fair use case deals with copies or reproductions by definition. Battle For Libraries The above is just a fraction of the legal arguments under discussion. While in essence this is a copyright dispute subject to existing law and jurisprudence, it’s exemplary of a bigger problem. The publishers are not only up against IA; a large public movement has formed in support. This includes Fight for the Future’s “Battle for Libraries” campaign, which argues that the publishers act as malicious gatekeepers, preventing the free flow of information and undermining libraries’ ability to serve their patrons. The general complaint is that publishers want to control and restrict digital access to books through relatively expensive licensing agreements. This serves a commercial purpose, but can also be used to censor content and restrict access whenever they see fit. The issue also attracted the attention of Creative Commons founder and Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig, who describes this as a critical moment in the history of culture. “The lawsuit that the Internet Archive faces will determine whether the business model of culture is the commercial model alone, or whether there will continue to be a place for libraries,” Lessig notes. Lawmakers have taken an interest in the dispute too. A few months ago, U.S. Senator Ron Wyden and Congresswoman Anna Eshoo sent a letter to the major publishers, asking them about their restrictive lease terms for ebooks. “Many libraries face financial and practical challenges in making e-books available to their patrons, which jeopardizes their ability to fulfill their mission,” their letter reads. “It is our understanding that these difficulties arise because e-books are typically offered under more expensive and limited licensing agreements, unlike print books that libraries can typically purchase, own, and lend on their own terms.” These comments show that this isn’t just another copyright lawsuit. Whatever the immediate outcomes of the pending motions and trial, this matter is likely to be contested all the way to the Supreme Court. Internet Archive’s Copyright Battle with Book Publishers Nears Climax

Internet Archive, the San Fransisco-based non-profit known for its digital archive Wayback Machine, has been facing DDoS (Distributed Denial-of-Service) attacks for the last few days. The non-profit announced that an unknown attacker(s) has been launching tens of thousands of fake information requests per second since the attacks began on Sunday. Internet Archive explained in a blog post: This came after the Internet Archive shared a series of updates about the DDoS attacks on the social media platform X (formerly Twitter). It notes that cyberattacks have become more frequent against libraries and other knowledge institutions, such as the British Library, Berlin Natural History Museum, and Ontario’s London Public Library, among the recent victims. Internet Archive's founder Brewster Kahle assured the collections are safe and said the organization is hardening its defenses to offer more reliable access to the library. "What is new is this attack has been sustained, impactful, targeted, adaptive, and importantly, mean,” he added. The cyberattacks share the timeline with the legal battle Internet Archive is facing from US book publishers, claiming copyright infringement and seeking combined damages of hundreds of millions of dollars from all libraries. Last year, the non-profit lost a lower court ruling against the book publishers in a case about its Controlled Digital Lending program. Source

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has dealt a blow to the Internet Archive's digital book lending program. The court upheld a lower court's decision, stating that IA's practice of scanning and lending copyrighted books without permission is not fair use. IA's lending program directly threatens the revenues of publishers and violates copyright law, the judges ruled. In 2020, publishers Hachette, HarperCollins, John Wiley and Penguin Random House sued the Internet Archive (IA) for copyright infringement, equating its ‘Open Library’ to a pirate site. IA’s library is a non-profit organization that, among other things, scans physical books in-house so these can be lent out to patrons as e-books. This “Controlled Digital Lending” (CDL) practice allows for only one copy of a book to be lent at a time, mirroring the traditional library lending model. At the same time, however, CDL bypasses the publishers’ e-book licensing model. Publishers vs. Internet Archive The in-house scanning service at the Internet Archive (IA) differs from the licensing agreements entered into by other libraries. These agreements see libraries license ‘official’ e-book versions from publishers, who charge for every book that’s lent out to patrons. The major book publishers eventually ran out of patience with IA’s DIY approach, filing a lawsuit that kicked off a major legal battle four years ago. The publishers equated IA’s lending operation to piracy and, last year, a New York federal court concluded that the library is indeed in the wrong. The court’s decision effectively put an end to IA’s self-scanning library, at least for books from the publishers in suit. However, IA was not giving up that easily; in December the non-profit filed its opening brief at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, hoping to reverse the judgment. Publishers Win at Court of Appeal During a hearing in June, both sides defended their positions. At the time, the court didn’t appear to be entirely convinced by IA’s arguments. This was confirmed by an opinion and judgment from the three judge panel published a few hours ago. After reviewing the evidence, circuit judges Steven Menashi, Beth Robinson, and Maria Kahn, affirmed the lower court’s order. They conclude that IA’s self-scanning approach can’t be classified as fair use under U.S. copyright law. Affirmed The court understands that libraries are burdened by e-book licensing fees, which can make book lending relatively expensive. However, that doesn’t give IA the right to create its own e-books and lend those out instead. “IA asks this Court to bless the large scale copying and distribution of copyrighted books without permission from or payment to the Publishers or authors,” the appeal court’s opinion reads. “Such a holding would allow for widescale copying that deprives creators of compensation and diminishes the incentive to produce new works. This may be what IA and its amici prefer, but it is not an approach that the Copyright Act permits.” Fair Use? The Internet Archive hoped to rely on a fair use determination. It stressed that the in-house e-book scanning approach is transformative, because it enhances access to books, especially for those who cannot easily visit physical libraries. The fact that the organization has no profit motive and only lends out as many digital copies as they have physical copies, should also favor fair use, they argued. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately disagrees. For one, the court emphasized that simply digitizing a book is not transformative, as it does not create a new purpose or character. The digital copies served the same function as the original books – reading. The court reasons that IA’s free digital lending could serve as a substitute for purchasing or licensing e-books, potentially harming the publishers’ revenue. That also goes against a fair use determination. The court further stresses that while IA is a non-profit, its activities to have a commercial aspect, as it indirectly benefits from its partnerships and donations. That, again, weighs against fair use. Harmful The court of appeal had to find a balance between the interests of rightsholders and IA. In this case, it concludes that the scale tilts in favor of the book publishers. In essence, the court prioritized the publishers’ right to control the reproduction and distribution of their works over IA’s goal of expanding access to knowledge. While IA’s actions are potentially beneficial in some ways, they ultimately harm the market for the publishers’ books, the court concludes. “While IA claims that prohibiting its practices would harm consumers and researchers, allowing its practices would―and does―harm authors. With each digital book IA disseminates, it deprives Publishers and authors of the revenues due to them as compensation for their unique creations,” the opinion reads. The decision means that IA’s e-book lending approach remains off-limits, as it applies to these copyrighted works. This may not signal the end of the legal battle, however. IA is clearly disappointed by the outcome, but it hasn’t thrown in the towel yet. “We are disappointed in today’s opinion about the Internet Archive’s digital lending of books that are available electronically elsewhere. We are reviewing the court’s opinion and will continue to defend the rights of libraries to own, lend, and preserve books,” IA writes. — A copy of the opinion from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals is available here (pdf), and the associated judgment can be found here (pdf). Source RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend Hope you enjoyed this news post. Thank you for appreciating my time and effort posting news every single day for many years. 2023: Over 5,800 news posts | 2024 (till end of August): 3,792 news posts