After three years of contentious legal wrangling by publishers and the Internet Archive, the copyright infringement case wasn’t even close, reports Andrew Albanese, Publishers Weekly.
Catching up with PW's Andrew Albanese
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Google Podcasts | Email | Download
In a 47-page opinion issued on March 24, United States district judge John G. Koeltl (SD-NY) found the Internet Archive infringed the copyrights of four plaintiff publishers by scanning and lending their books under a legally contested practice known as controlled digital lending (CDL).
The ruling came after a March 20 hearing, during which the judge sounded deeply skeptical of the Internet Archive’s case, reports Andrew Albanese, Publishers Weekly senior writer.
“In a devastating decision, Koeltl noted that no case or legal principle supported the IA’s scanning and lending program,” Albanese tells CCC’s Chris Kenneally. “In fact, Koeltl concluded that every authority points the other direction.”
The closely watched copyright infringement lawsuit was first filed on June 1, 2020, by Hachette, HarperCollins, Penguin Random House, and Wiley, and was organized by the Association of American Publishers.
“While the suit specifically involves 127 works from the plaintiff publishers, that’s just a sample of the 33,000 plaintiff publishers’ works said to be included in the Internet Archive’s library, with court filings suggesting the library includes an estimated 3.6 million works potentially under copyright,” Albanese says.
Every Friday, CCC’s “Velocity of Content” speaks with the editors and reporters of “Publishers Weekly” for an early look at the news that publishers, editors, authors, agents and librarians will be talking about when they return to work on Monday.
