Big publishers think libraries are the enemy

The recent ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Hachette v. Internet Archive has intensified the ongoing conflict between major publishers and libraries regarding digital book lending. The court upheld a previous decision that the Internet Archive's controlled digital lending (CDL) program infringes on copyright laws, siding with publishers like Hachette, HarperCollins, and Penguin Random House, who argue that such lending harms their sales. Critics, including the Internet Archive, contend that this ruling undermines libraries' roles as essential public resources and restricts access to information. The court's decision suggests that libraries are detrimental to society, a claim that lacks substantial evidence. The Internet Archive's CDL model mimics traditional library lending, allowing one digital copy to be borrowed at a time, yet the court dismissed expert testimony indicating no measurable harm to publishers from this practice. The ruling reflects a broader trend where publishers seek to control the distribution of digital content, often treating library patrons as adversaries rather than allies. This situation raises concerns about censorship, surveillance, and the fundamental rights of readers to access information freely.

- The Second Circuit Court ruled against the Internet Archive's digital lending program, siding with major publishers.

- Publishers argue that library lending harms their sales, a claim contested by the Internet Archive's evidence.

- The ruling suggests libraries are detrimental to society, raising concerns about censorship and access to information.

- The decision reflects a trend of publishers seeking to control digital content distribution.

- The Internet Archive's model aims to replicate traditional library lending but faces legal challenges.