Many of you who are online more than I am have likely/almost certainly heard that in the case of Hatchett v. internet archive, a judge ruled against IA’s “motion for summary judgement” (which you can look at below). They ruled that their controlled digital lending program (CDL) was not fair use and a violation of copyright.
But here’s the thing. IA and their partner libraries only scan and lend those books for which they have physical copies, and they lend only the number of copies a book that they have at one time. They are no different from your average library in this respect. The difference? They don’t require a physical address to have an account (As far as I can remember, correct me if I’m wrong), so homeless people are able to check out books, music, and everything else that IA offers for free.
They offer deleted web pages via the Wayback machine, which are essential for journalists doing research into shady shit that may have been deleted from the regular internet.
AND they’re not limited by the geographical boundaries of local libraries. Everyone, everywhere, has access to the same materials, except for in cases where there are legal restrictions on internet (a VPN can help you there!)
There’s NOTHING illegal about what IA is doing. But if we lose them, we’ll lose SO MUCH knowledge. Greedy publishers with more money they can ever spend are trying to restrict free access to knowledge to make more money they don’t need (when they’ve already made money of IA buying physical copies of the books in the first place!).
IA is appealing, but if publishers win this case, what’s next? Will they come for project Gutenberg? In my opinion it’s likely, because a loss in this case will likely call into question precedents involving copyright laws and public domain.
Which brings me to my next point- THEY WILL COME FOR LIBRARIES!!! IA is essentially an online library, one that has been and should be protected under the law. I’m not a lawyer (disclaimer), but this seems pretty clear to me: If slimy lawyers working for slimy companies and in league with slimy judges win this one, they will have shattered the way the law views existing permissions under copyright law.
And if they come for libraries? Well, the conservative US government already controls education, teaching us a white-washed view of history. The only way to truly learn a global perspective (and one that is written from the account of the oppressed and those lacking power) is to seek it out on one’s own. And systemic inequalities mean that many people could not afford to seek out that knowledge without libraries and free informational exchanges like IA. And 🏴☠️ can be hard, especially if you’re not as good with technology.
If oppressed and historically disenfranchised people are kept ignorant, then it is easier to keep them oppressed and to convince them to work against their own interests. College is financially unattainable for many, and free informational exchange is often the only way for people to expand their perspective. This threatens the powerful.
There are a plethora of other reasons that IA and libraries are good (safe and free entertainment, diachronic historical perspectives, a safe haven for the unhoused), but I think I’ve said enough and I have to get to my underpaid, un-unionized job (learn about collective action and unionization at your local library or on IA!!!)
If you can, donate! I’ll put links below for the donation page for IA, and the sources I used.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), with co-counsel Morrison Foerster LLP, is defending the Internet Archive against a lawsuit that th
Internet Archive: Digital Library of Free & Borrowable Books, Movies, Music & Wayback Machine
