Tag: Hachette et al. v. Internet Archive

An Open Letter from a Copyright Nerd to About 300 Authors

Dear Authors (“the undersigned”):

It’s not your fault. You mean well. But you are simply wrong to have signed that letter—the one written and orchestrated by Fight for the Future (FFTF), which misrepresents the case Hachette et al., v Internet Archive as an attack on libraries. If I were not a copyright nerd, and I were told that this lawsuit seeks to undermine “traditional library rights,” I probably would have signed that letter, if asked. But the parties calling this a case about library survival are exploiting your good nature and the likelihood that you do not know much about this case. In fact, Authors Guild, in its response this morning states:

“In speaking with authors who signed this letter because they support public libraries, as we do we [sic], they feel misled about the purpose of this letter. For instance, Daniel Handler (Lemony Snicket) disavows the letter and supports the lawsuit.”

The reason I advocate copyright rights is simple enough. I love the arts and firmly believe that a democracy without empowered authors and artists is doomed to become something other than a democracy. As I have been a copyright advocate (and nerd) for just over a decade, I don’t think it would be arrogance at this point to say that I am one of a handful of non-attorney experts on the subject. Not only does my experience encompass a solid knowledge of statutory law, case law, and the history of core doctrines, but it includes many encounters with the tactics of those organizations and individuals who want to strip authors of their copyright rights while disguising that agenda in the rhetoric of democracy, liberty, and defense of the underdog. Internet Archive and Fight for the Future are two organizations baptized in that ideology, and its leaders and comms teams do not scruple to employ tactics indistinguishable from other bullies and liars.

For instance, are you “the undersigned” aware that FFTF engaged in author-shaming on social media? They tagged writers and asked them baseless, rhetorical questions about “helping to sue IA” and whether they really want to keep their books away from “families who can’t afford them.” Surely, you are all keen enough observers of human nature to know that merely tagging authors with such false implications is enough to foster threats—at least one author has received death threats—against some of them. I fail to see how such tactics by FFTF are any more ethical than the kind of ratfucking employed by Trump’s cult to intimidate poll workers, et al. But this is a travesty of the digital age—it is just so damn easy to lie about basic facts in an effort to win an argument in the court of public opinion that one is likely to lose in a court of law.

We have all watched as allegations about “stolen elections” and other staggering bullshit move frictionless at lightspeed through the Twitterverse. But we also breathe a little sigh of relief to see that at least in court, facts must be presented and weighed. And there is a reason why the facts presented in the case against Internet Archive have no resemblance to the allegations made in that letter you signed.

Although Internet Archive has provided us with some wonderful services—I have used its legal archive for research many times—the factual basis for the publishers’ lawsuit is that IA also operates a book scanning and distribution enterprise in a manner that is not allowed by copyright law and which looks nothing like the operation of your library or mine. The specific conduct that predicated the suit was IA’s so-called “National Emergency Library” in March 2020. Citing COVID shutdowns as an excuse, Internet Archive digitally distributed approximately 1.4 million in-copyright books without restriction of any kind—let alone any logic to the titles released, given its stated intent to “help students.”

So, in the simplest terms, no. This is not what libraries do. Real libraries operate within the boundaries of copyright law, which includes several statutory carve-outs written exclusively for those institutions. By contrast, IA asserts theories that are a) unfounded in law; and 2) have been described by Kahle and others as a prelude to changing copyright law in ways that would weaken authors’ rights–and even harm libraries. They have stated, for example, that they see this fight with the publishers as a step toward amending Section 109 of the Copyright Act (first sale doctrine), which is so shortsighted that it would actually dilute the value of real libraries over time. Those of us familiar with Kahle’s agenda recognized the “National Emergency Library” as a stunt—one which may have been intended to provoke the lawsuit now at hand.

It is Mr. Kahle’s consistently stated assertion that copyright rights are little more than a barrier standing between you and your readers. He and his ideological siblings at FFTF, EFF, et al. sincerely and consistently argue that your legal authority to negotiate terms for your labor and talent stands in the way of the public’s access to information and culture. And in the most basic terms, the implications of IA’s conduct—if the publishers were to let it go, or if the court allowed it—would be to substantially undermine the foundation of the only labor right you have as an author. If you believe Mr. Kahle is correct—that the world would work better without those rights—then your signature belongs on that letter. But speaking as a copyright nerd, I assure you that history rejects this view.

During most of the nineteenth century, American publishers hardly invested in American authors for one simple reason:  because the absence of international copyright treaties meant that it was cheaper to reproduce unlicensed copies of European books than it was to publish, and therefore pay, an American author. This is why Walt Whitman advocated for the formal recognition of international copyrights throughout his career, barely living long enough to see the first such American law pass in 1891. Ideologues like Mr. Kahle and his friends talk about a future in which all creative works are unfettered by copyright, but what they don’t mention (or perhaps don’t know) is that we’ve been there, done that. And it sucked.

Another observation I hope I can offer without conceit or offense is that after ten years, I would say that not even the most rights-sensitive authors tend to know a great deal about the particulars of copyright law. And why would you? It’s tedious arcana for attorneys and agents. But this is also why it is dismaying to see names like Neil Gaiman among “the undersigned” while his books and characters are so prominently adapted into motion picture projects and merchandise worth millions.

Because I want to ask whether you are aware, Neil, that the only reason you must be consulted or compensated for those adaptations in the U.S. is Section 106(2) of the Copyright Act? Or that this “right to prepare derivative works” has its origins in a 1907 lawsuit involving the first film adaptation of Ben Hur? Or that the authors’ right to be paid a higher percentage on sales of ebooks than physical books is predicated on this same part of the statute?

So, what I’m saying is that copyright is complicated; you “the undersigned” all benefit from it; authors less prominent than you really depend on it; and you just endorsed the people whose stated agenda is to trash it in ways you probably don’t understand. This is so not about libraries.

Brief in Defense of CDL Indicts Internet Archive and CDL

Among the amici who filed briefs in Hachette v. Internet Archive is former law professor and library director Michelle Wu, who, as the brief states, “…is recognized by many as the originator of the legal theory underlying controlled digital lending (“CDL”) ….” With her brief, Wu seeks to defend CDL as a doctrine and asks the court to limit its considerations to the facts related solely to IA’s conduct and to reject what she calls the publishers’ overbroad “attack” on CDL itself. She states:

CDL takes many forms. Many libraries around the United States offer works through CDL subject to their own individual platforms and practices. The arguments offered by Plaintiffs in support of their motion for summary judgment are a broad-based attack on all of them, shoehorning the very concept of CDL into a dispute about the Internet Archive’s individual implementation of it.

Before addressing the arguments presented in the brief, it is noteworthy that if Ms. Wu would have CDL inoculated against the conduct of Internet Archive, she and her colleagues have had ample time to distance themselves and the legal theory from IA’s founder and avowed anti-copyright crusader Brewster Kahle. Because one year after IA engaged in the infringing conduct that triggered the publishers’ litigation (March 2020), Wu was a key member in a Public Knowledge-hosted panel with Kahle (March 2021), entitled Burying Information – Big Tech & Access to Information.

Promoted in the wake of the January 6th insurrection as a remedy to misinformation, the panel blamed copyright law for contributing to the perils of widespread ignorance and conspiracy theories threatening democracy. Specifically, Wu et al. touted CDL as a necessary alternative to ebook library licensing on the grounds that this licensing is somehow keeping knowledge away from the very people who need it. Further, nobody on the panel disputed Kahle’s allegations that the publishers’ suit against IA was an attack on CDL and libraries in general.

So, in addition to the fact that it seems hypocritical for Wu to now ask the court to distinguish the underlying theory of CDL from the conduct and agenda of IA, it is no surprise that the arguments she presents echo the same general complaints against copyright rights articulated in that panel discussion. For instance, Wu reprises the theme that libraries are sentinels against the tide of rampant mis- and disinformation in the digital age—and repeats the claim that CDL is integral to that mission. “CDL is an essential pillar of countering misinformation by making library materials accessible, relevant, and competitive,” the brief states.

Even if that premise were not magical thinking (because lack of access is not the cause of the dangerously misinformed), Wu paints with too broad a brush in defense of her theory that CDL is inherently legal. Aside from the fact that there is no evidence that all the access to all the books in the world will disburse the fact-immune hoards from laying siege to reason,[1] Wu’s faith in the contrary belies a general prejudice against copyright law in lieu of articulating a concise argument for the narrow opinion she claims to want from the court.

Moreover, Wu may be blind to the fatal flaw in her central argument when she says that “many libraries” use CDL in different ways to achieve a variety of purposes. The problem with her list of general examples (e.g., CDL for preservation, serving readers with disabilities, etc.) is twofold. First, many of the examples stated or implied are activities exempted for libraries by statute. Second, the possibility that certain activities of several libraries may be allowed by fair use undermines the broad sweep of Wu’s defense by emphasizing that fair use is a fact-intensive, case-by-case consideration.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, a fair use defense does not turn on a particular method of copying or making a work available. The CDL theory asserts that it is legal for a library to essentially make its own ebooks from the printed books in its collection, as long as it never loans more electronic copies than it owns physical copies that were legally obtained. Wu’s brief impliedly acknowledges that Internet Archive did not adhere to the “controlled” part of CDL, but in seeking to rescue “real CDL,” the brief is tellingly overstuffed with allegations that, even if true, are not applicable to a question of fair use.

For instance, Wu refers to budgetary constraints of libraries and the supposedly onerous cost of ebook licensing by publishers. But even if this allegation were valid for most libraries—and it does not appear to be—it would say nothing about whether a library’s version of CDL would fall under the fair use exception. On the contrary, Wu’s complaint about existing ebook licensing effectively acknowledges that CDL is a means of bypassing that licensing model and implies that this is justified by cost.

This argument is barely distinguishable from familiar rationalizations for large-scale piracy, which any court should find unpersuasive in general and should find meaningless as a fair use question. The amount of a licensing fee demanded for any work is immaterial to the question of whether a user who avoids paying the license is making a fair use. Wu’s attention to the cost of ebook licensing seems meant to distract from the reality that, even with the controls in force as prescribed by the CDL theory, the model displaces the authors’ right to license ebooks on their terms to libraries. And this market substitute consideration should ultimately doom a fair use defense on all four factors.

This consideration would be unaffected, even if ebook licenses were shown to be onerous because such a complaint, if valid, would properly sound in antitrust law or consumer protection or be argued before Congress seeking a new library-based exemption in the Copyright Act.[2] But because allegations of burdensome pricing models are not properly addressed by fair use, this suggests, again, that Wu and her colleagues defending CDL are admitting that the model is a market substitute and believe that it should be based on their own ideological reasoning

Several aspects of Internet Archive’s operation, including the activities at issue in this litigation, disqualify the entity from statutory exemptions accorded to libraries in Section 108 of the Copyright Act. Inasmuch as IA tries to stand in the shoes of real libraries, this is a PR message for social media but one without a foundation in law. And because IA is not a real library, a finding that its conduct is legal would only further embolden any commercial enterprise to engage in mass, unlicensed digitization and distribution of ebooks and other works.

By contrast, Wu’s insinuation of difficulties for legit libraries engaged in “many forms” of CDL are either unfounded or, perhaps, they inadvertently implicate some of those libraries in infringing conduct. Either way, facts pertaining to the operation of some number of unnamed libraries are not before the court in this case, and only a detailed accounting of those facts, library-by-library could have any legal bearing on those activities. As such, we must conclude that Wu and her colleagues simply want the courts to find that CDL is automatically fair use, and this would be doctrinally absurd. Because the courts are well aware that no conduct is automatically fair use. Not even for libraries.

[1] As noted in my post about that panel, the entire Western canon is more widely and freely available than at any time in history.

[2] In fact, the state ebook licensing laws for libraries have largely been premised on consumer protection and still failed, thus far, as unconstitutional state compulsory licenses.

Photo by: nito

Internet Archive the Racket

I think we’ve figured out by now that you can fundraise by lying to people about a threat, right? You can tell them an election was stolen. Or that the internet is under attack. Or that movie stars are harvesting babies to make adrenochrome. Or you can tell them stuff like this . . .

Damn. That’s some chutzpah. If Internet Archive were honest about this litigation and sending out fundraising emails, I’d leave this part of the story alone. But read that message and tell me it doesn’t sound eerily familiar. Because IA’s claim that it’s “defending access to knowledge” is like Donald Trump saying he’s “defending our Constitution.” The email even uses the word radical to describe the publishers’ suit in order to obfuscate the fact that it was IA’s random and illegal (one might say radical) conduct that triggered this litigation in the first place.

Of course, Brewster Kahle’s crusade does not have the grave implications of an attempted coup d’etat, but the comparison I’m making is fair because the tactics are the same: lie about some principle or operation being under threat and ask suckers for money to support the defense. Because the irrefutable fact is that if IA loses this suit (and I believe it will), the outcome will have zero effect on the “right of libraries to lend books.” This is just common sense.

Even if you do not have time to dig into the details of this case, you can ask yourself why the publishers filed suit in 2020 against IA and not against any actual library system? Or you could ask the most obvious question: Has ordinary library lending always violated copyright law, and the publishers just suddenly decided to start litigating? Obviously not.

The modicum of truth underlying that slick email is this: Internet Archive decided to violate copyright law and provoke a litigation that, if successful, could allow all libraries to engage in unlicensed ebook production and distribution. And while there are indeed library associations that would endorse this agenda, that is not the same thing as a fight to preserve the status quo in library lending as the email so stridently declares.

Your local library system is not engaged in the conduct at issue in this lawsuit. Here’s just a sample list of allegations that distinguish Internet Archive:

  • Internet Archive operates an industrial-scale scanning service which has generated over $25 million since 2011. It provides this “service” to libraries but retains digital copies for itself and makes many of the digital copies available at its own discretion. Your library does not do this.
  • Internet Archive allegedly keeps thousands of physical books in a warehouse in shipping containers as part of the “collection” it then loans in digital form under a theory of its own invention called “Controlled Digital Lending” (CDL). Your library does not do this.
  • Citing the COVD-19 shutdowns as an excuse, IA made available approximately 1.4 million titles without controls of any kind in March 2020. Your library did not do this.
  • Internet Archive makes unrestricted access to digital books available that it deems to be in the public domain but which are, in fact, still in-copyright titles. Your library does not do this.
  • Internet Archive seeks to displace licensed ebook lending models like OverDrive. Your library does not do this.
  • Internet Archive is not a library despite its claim to “accreditation” based on federal funding it has received in the past. Said funding does not make IA a library as defined in the Copyright Act. Your library is a library.
  • Internet Archive does not appear to follow its own made-up rules. So, even if those made-up rules were legal exceptions (and they are so not), it would be violating those exceptions anyway. Your library does not behave like this.
  • Internet Archive’s founder Brewster Kahle, using a shell corporation, purchased Better World Books, which “sells used books” and then feeds IA’s Open Library with in-copyright books it then claims it is allowed to loan under the theory of CDL. Your librarian does not do anything of the sort.

Naturally, these allegations and others are all matters worthy of more in-depth discussion. But my point in summarizing a few examples is that there is no merit whatsoever to a fundraising email suggesting that the publishers suddenly or randomly decided to go after ordinary library lending.

Tell you what, though. Rather than send millionaire Brewster Kahle your money, send me $5.00 today. I can use it more than he can, and unlike that guy, I make every effort to support what I write with facts. Plus, as a bonus, if you send five bucks right now, I can almost totally guarantee you will not be abducted by aliens!

Send David $5.00

Don’t be abducted by aliens! Send $5.00 today!