In a development that may mark a turning point in their legal dispute, the Internet Archive and a consortium of prominent book publishers have jointly informed a Manhattan federal court about their progress in resolving key aspects of their ongoing conflict concerning the Archive’s digital lending of scanned books, Reuters reported.
Pending acceptance, a consent judgment is poised to address several critical matters in the case, encompassing potential financial compensation and the extent of restrictions on the Archive’s lending practices. Importantly, the consent judgment holds the potential to pave the way for an appeal in response to U.S. District Judge John Koeltl’s previous ruling, which found that the Archive had infringed upon the publishers’ copyrights.
Under the proposed terms, the Archive would be obligated to make an undisclosed monetary payment to entities such as Lagardere SCA’s Hachette Book Group, News Corp’s HarperCollins Publishers, John Wiley & Sons, and Bertelsmann SE & Co’s Penguin Random House if the Archive’s appeal proves unsuccessful.
Additionally, the consent judgment would establish a permanent injunction preventing the Archive from lending copies of the publishers’ books without explicit permission while the appeal is pending. However, a point of contention remains as the parties urge Judge Koeltl to clarify whether this injunction exclusively pertains to books already available for electronic licensing or extends to books commercially accessible in any format.
Addressing the developments, the Internet Archive acknowledged that the battle is far from resolved, asserting in a blog post that they remain committed to the cause of strong libraries. Brewster Kahle, the founder of the Archive, emphasized that the decision to appeal was driven by the necessity of preserving robust library systems.
Maria Pallante, CEO of the Association of American Publishers, conveyed satisfaction with the proposed injunction, highlighting its broad impact across a range of literary works. The injunction would encompass not only the 127 works directly implicated in the lawsuit but also extend its effect to numerous other pieces within the publishers’ catalogs.
Originating in 2020, the publishers’ lawsuit was sparked by the Archive’s practice of lending scanned copies of print books. This digital lending initiative gained traction as traditional libraries faced closures during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Archive’s argument hinges on the notion of “controlled digital lending,” likening it to conventional library lending. They assert that their practices are protected by the fair use doctrine, which permits limited use of copyrighted material under certain circumstances. In contrast, the publishers assert that the Archive’s program is a veiled vehicle for extensive copyright infringement.
In prior proceedings, Judge Koeltl determined that the Archive’s activities did not warrant fair-use protection, noting that its digital copies were effectively replacing authorized e-books licensed by publishers to conventional libraries.
With a keen interest in tech, I make it a point to keep myself updated on the latest developments in technology and gadgets. That includes smartphones or tablet devices but stretches to even AI and self-driven automobiles, the latter being my latest fad. Besides writing, I like watching videos, reading, listening to music, or experimenting with different recipes. The motion picture is another aspect that interests me a lot, and I'll likely make a film sometime in the future.
