The Internet Archive lost its appeal in a landmark copyright case and agreed to pay an unspecified amount to publishers

Hatchette Book Group Inc., v. Internet Archive, a landmark case decided in Hatchett’s favor on March 20, 2023. The Internet Archive appeal has been closed after a year-long appeals process.

This is all a result of a decision taken at the beginning of the COVID-19 Pandemic in 2020. As lockdowns began to occur, and the public no longer had access to libraries, the Internet Archive opened its library to the general public, allowing users to "lend" their books (via Wired).

This scheme, called the National Emergency Library, ran from March 24 until June 2020. It provided a "temporary library of books to support emergency remote teaching, independent scholarship and intellectual stimulation".

Previously, the digital versions of these books were physical copies that it had access to. You could add your name to a waiting list where users would share access to the ebook. Users were required to purchase tickets in order to read the ebook versions.

Hatchette Book Group, however, sued the Internet Archive for copyright infringement when the waitlist restriction removed in early 2020.

The Internet Archive has agreed to pay a non-disclosed amount to publishers whose books have been replicated over the past months. As the comments to this post demonstrate, this decision has been met by ire. Providing educational tools for free is a way to eliminate the prohibitively high barriers that prevent people from purchasing their own.

As someone who studied Law as part my degree, I can confirm that paying hundreds of dollars for books as a college student is almost impossible. The Internet Archive, despite the fact that this case is effectively over, has received a lot of online support since early 2020.

Although the decision seems to be the rightone in a legal context, it is hard not to regret the further protection of texts that could help many with their educational needs. Fundamentally, books that are used to educate people have a different purpose than those that are used primarily to entertain. However, this distinction is important in a legal setting.

The broader social pushback surrounding this case may encourage publishers to be a little more "generous", with the works that are currently being hoarded.