Source: Chris Freeland, Internet Archive Blogs
By Isa Oliveira Taranto, Staff Writer
The digital age brings about many issues we do not know how to tackle—books are one of them.
Technology revolutionized the publishing industry. Our willingness and ability to consume content have shifted towards online spaces and shorter, low-cost forms. The practicality of the e-reader further incentivizes a migration to virtual media. Social media niches, such as BookTok, are shaping the reading preferences of millions.
With widespread access to information, however, arise new challenges for the regularization of intellectual property. To what extent should knowledge be made democratically accessible? What legislation should protect the rights of creators online?
An answer arose in 2024. In September, a United States appeals court upheld Hachette v. Internet Archive’s earlier ruling that Internet Archive’s book digitization violated copyright law. The San Francisco-based, non-governmental organization (NGO) decided against pursuing review by the U. S. Supreme Court.
The case has been ongoing since 2020, when several major publishing companies filed a lawsuit following Internet Archive’s polemic “National Emergency Library” project. At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the NGO scanned and uploaded 1.4 million books to its website, where e-books could be borrowed in a system similar to that of a conventional library.
This initiative attempts to maintain access to knowledge at a time when many schools and libraries were closed. Its format was inspired by the concept of Controlled Digital Lending, coined by Michelle Wu, former director of the Georgetown Law Library. This practice differs from the business model of Amazon’s Kindle library, for example, because the latter licenses e-books provided by the publisher, while Internet Archive digitizes works without engaging with their author or publishers. The project was interrupted soon after the original filing in the year of its launch, but the lawsuit continued.
Internet Archive’s appeal argued in favor of the “National Emergency Library” by highlighting the potential for public service ruling. Their case was supported by hundreds of authors and many academics. However, judges of the appeals court unanimously rejected the project, justifying their decision with the Copyright Act and binding precedent. Many writing and publishing organizations, such as the Authors Guild, celebrated this decision, attesting to the divisive nature of the matter.
The case set an important precedent for digital library rights and copyright disputes. It also foreshadows the growing restrictions on accessing online content, as governments struggle to police expansive and diverse online spaces. The recent TikTok ban in the United States, albeit short-lived, exemplifies how concerns with user privacy and information safety are likewise compelling state intervention.
The legal defeat of Internet Archive also poses questions regarding the durability of physical libraries and books: if our world shifts online, but digital libraries remain legally rejected, what—if anything—will substitute the conventional forms of literature distribution?
Some scholars have theorized that traditional libraries will evolve and adapt to the digital era. Major institutions are embracing technology. From University of Toronto’s Robarts Library to Toronto Public Library’s many branches, computers, electronic devices, and e-book apps, such as Libby, are already commonplace. Others are more skeptical, arguing that libraries have lost their “sacredness” as institutions, since the internet has been toppling their monopoly on knowledge distribution.
Ultimately, Internet Archive and its legal battle make up only one facet of a global revolution, where an increasingly virtual world is challenging our institutions of knowledge and education and our very conception of them.
