Now that the December 3rd deadline has passed for Internet Archive to file for cert with the Supreme Court, the copyright case litigated by book publishers Hachette et al. is closed. The Second Circuit decision will stand, finding that IA’s legal theories were without merit—theories I have discussed in multiple posts and will not rehash again here. I have also ...
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 Second Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday affirmed that Internet Archive’s digital book lending model controlled digital lending (CDL) is not permitted by copyright law, including under the fair use exception. The outcome is a ...
On March 24, the court in Hachette et al. v. Internet Archive wholly rejected IA’s fair use defense constructed on the theory called Controlled Digital Lending (CDL). Prior to and since that ruling, various parties have tried to characterize this case as an attack by the publishers against the core function of libraries, alleging that libraries either already depend, or ...
With the court’s unequivocal decision in Hachette et al. v. Internet Archive, and the continued failure of ebook legislation in various states, it is time for policymakers and librarians to understand the reason why this two-pronged campaign against copyright rights in ebooks is losing—because the academics, organizations, and lobbyists behind the effort are lying. Yes, that’s a big accusation to ...
In a recent article for The Scholarly Kitchen, Todd A. Carpenter, Executive Director of the National Information Standards Organization (NISO), defends Internet Archive (in Hachette et al. v. Internet Archive) and the practice called Controlled Digital Lending (CDL). Proving that one need not be Lindsey Graham to engage in propaganda disguised as legal opinion, Carpenter predictably elides any mention of ...
