A US federal judge rules in favor of four publishers in their copyright infringement case against the Internet Archive and its Controlled Digital Lending system
Today's lower court decision in Hachette v. Internet Archive is a blow … Paul Hill / Neowin : Court rules against Internet Archive in favour of book publishers on digital lending United States District Court : Hachette Book Group v Internet Archive AAP : Publishers Prevail in Summary Judgement Against Internet Archive for Copyright Infringement Mashable : Internet Archive loses first ruling in copyright lawsuit Reuters : U.S. judge rules Internet Archive's digital book lending violates copyrights Mike Glyer / File 770 : Judge Decides Against Internet Archive Fight for the Future : Statement on Internet Archive's plan to appeal lower court ruling against libraries' rights to own and preserve digital books LinkedIn: Jake Orlowitz : This afternoon, the lower court ruled against the Internet Archive. — “Libraries are more than the customer service departments for corporate database products. … Mastodon: Ryan / @ryanhoulihan@mastodon.social : Destroying the Internet Archive will not stop people from piracy. We learned this in the 90s. With infinitely reproducible goods and rampant wealth inequality, piracy can and will flourish. Personally, I think it should. … Daniel Nazer / @danielnazer@mastodon.social : tbh I've always felt the Internet Archive's digital lending case was a tough one but I'm appalled by the judge finding the lending program “commercial” because it allowed IA to “solicit donations” and “bolster its standing.” … Max Kennerly / @maxkennerly@mstdn.social : The central holding of the #InternetArchive court opinion is, if you own a physical book and scan it, you infringed the author's copyright by creating an unauthorized copy—even if you never use both at the same time. … @rysiek@mstdn.social : So @internetarchive scanning books for their digital library is copyright infringement: — http://blog.archive.org/... But OpenAI slurping all of that to train a model that then can generate text and put actual authors out of business (already happening with copywriters), is not. … Maria Bustillos / @maria@thelife.boats : Devastated to learn of publishers' motion for summary judgement granted in their case against the Internet Archive. — https://www.docdroid.net/... Ernie Smith / @ernie@writing.exchange : This is so infuriating. We have let the law break things in the digital world that just worked in the physical world. @internetarchive matters so much in this world: https://www.theverge.com/... Mike Masnick / @mmasnick@mastodon.social : Brewster's statement: Mike Masnick / @mmasnick@mastodon.social : Welp, the publishers are one step closer to killing libraries (and the internet archive). Judge took just a few days to do serious damage to fair use. This was going to get appealed no matter what, but now it's an appeal that's started off on the wrong foot.... … Tweets: @publisherswkly : BREAKING: A federal judge has decided in favor of four publishers in the long-awaited copyright case Hachette v. Internet Archive. “There is nothing transformative about IA's copying and unauthorized lending of the works in the suit,” the judge writes. This story is developing. @authorsguild : We are thrilled by the decision in the Internet Archive/Open Library lawsuit. As we have long argued, scanning & lending books w/out permission or compensation is NOT fair use—it is theft & it devalues authors' works. https://storage.courtlistener.com/ ... Christina Warren / @film_girl : I'm personally mad at the publishers primarily, but also at cowardly little bitches like Chuck Wendig, his parasocial fans of his terrible writing, the YA authors who complained that their flop books ever were at risk, and every person who has supported action against the IA. https://twitter.com/... @chrisfreeland : Hello, internet. I'm a librarian at the Internet Archive. Important reminder that @ChuckWendig: - is not involved in the publishers' lawsuit - has spoken out against the lawsuit - has spoken out in support of @internetarchive Be mad at the publishers. https://www.fightforthefuture.org/ ... Scott Stein / @jetscott : Also got this https://twitter.com/... @ebyesterday : I am one of the many independent researchers who relies on @internetarchive to find rare and historical documents. Especially for those of us who don't have access to university libraries or other institutional support, this is a huge loss https://www.theverge.com/... Cory Doctorow / @doctorow : The court bases this on the existence of a “licensed” ebooks from publishers - ebooks that cost many multiples of the print editions and self-destruct after just a few lend-outs: https://blog.archive.org/... 47/ @ianjq : This is awful news as someone who has used IA as an invaluable resource for work and as someone who has made work-for-hire that was delisted https://twitter.com/... Matt Stoller / @matthewstoller : I just read this decision. What the Internet Archive did was absolutely outrageous, straight-up theft from authors. https://storage.courtlistener.com/ ... https://twitter.com/... Peter Suber / @petersuber : I'm with you. I'm a book author (x5) who supports free lending libraries, including free digital lending and #CDL. I not only support what you do and have done with my books. I support your legal arguments. https://twitter.com/... Mary Branscombe / @marypcbuk : It's so sad that the Internet Archive put its important work in jeopardy for a ham fisted attempt to be a lending library without paying authors https://twitter.com/... T.J. Stiles / @tjstiles_author : As a working author, I want to look at the summary judgement against Internet Archive's “Controlled Digital Lending”: copying and distributing books without permission. No legal analysis, but an explanation of why it matters to me, as an author. 1/ https://storage.courtlistener.com/ ... Tonyo Cruz / @tonyocruz : The Internet Archive has lost its first fight to scan and lend e-books like a library A federal judge has ruled against the Internet Archive in a lawsuit brought by four book publishers. https://www.theverge.com/... Noah Kulwin / @nkulw : If the publishers weren't run by grubby and tasteless suits then they would understand that this is a bad business decision https://twitter.com/... @byyourlogic : thank you to some of the worst writers of all time for destroying one of the last non rent seeking services on the internet https://twitter.com/... Andres Guadamuz / @technollama : This is a worrying development in the US courts. The erosion of exceptions and limitations that protect libraries and archives must be stopped. Copyright maximalism won't rest until there are no libraries left. https://twitter.com/... @cit_uprising : Our copyright laws are so corrupt we let distant family members of artists sue for millions because a 40 year old song none of them had anything to do with has a similar drum beat for 8 seconds. Now, a clown writer takes down the most valuable library on earth. It is a LIBRARY. https://twitter.com/... Trevor Baylis / @trevylimited : This stands out to me! “IA does not dispute that it violated the Publishers'....rights to prepare derivative works, by “recasting” the Publishers' print books into ebooks” P.14 https://storage.courtlistener.com/ ... @shortformernie : The publishers won the first round. If they win the other rounds, they might as well just shut down libraries because that's honestly what they're trying to do. https://www.theverge.com/... See also Mediagazer
Context & Ripple Effects
The dispute arrived after coverage framed the central question as whether ebook ownership supports the Internet Archive’s lending model, while librarians warned that the publishers’ suit could constrain digital-collection development. The ownership question around ebooks made this more than a dispute over one nonprofit’s catalog.
The ruling became the foundation for the Archive’s later appeal strategy, which included the removal of more than 500,000 books, and that appeal was ultimately unsuccessful. The Archive’s planned appeal and book removals show the operational stakes attached to the legal finding.
First-order effects
- The Internet Archive must treat its Controlled Digital Lending program as infringing for the books covered by the case, strengthening the four publishers’ ability to control digital lending on their terms.
- Publishers gain a favorable judicial benchmark against a model that digitizes and lends scanned books without the licensing arrangements publishers seek.
Second-order effects
- Libraries and digital-collection operators face greater legal risk in relying on ownership of physical copies as a basis for ebook lending, likely increasing dependence on publisher licensing models.
- The decision gives rightsholders a clearer enforcement reference point against distribution services that characterize broad digital access as library lending rather than licensed distribution.
Third-order effects
- If courts continue to reject Controlled Digital Lending, the digital-library market is likely to remain organized around publisher-controlled licenses rather than a digital extension of first-sale ownership.
- The case also illustrates a wider shift toward testing the liability of intermediaries at the distribution layer; its reach beyond this lending model will depend on future courts and distinct facts.
The trend: Digital access to copyrighted works is increasingly being governed through licensing and platform-distribution rules rather than by treating physical ownership as transferable digital lending rights.