Month: March 2023

In 2020, publishers Hachette, HarperCollins, John Wiley and Penguin Random House sued the Internet Archive (IA) for copyright infringement, equating its ‘Open Library’ to a pirate site.

IA’s library is operated by a non-profit organization that scans physical books and then lends the digital copies to patrons in an ebook format.

While ‘digital’ book lending is not uncommon, libraries typically loan out DRM-protected files after acquiring a license from publishers. In this case, IA sent physical books it owned to a scanning facility and made its own copies.

Fair Use or Mass Copyright Infringement?

These digital copies were subsequently loaned out to patrons, with IA ensuring that only one person at a time could access a single digital copy of a single physical book.

IA previously sought summary judgment in its favor, arguing that a digital copy of a physical book ‘transforms’ the original work, with lending limits and the absence of profit also supporting a finding of fair use.

In contrast, the publishers described IA’s library as a rogue operation engaging in willful mass copyright infringement. Claiming direct damage to their bottom line, the publishers’ lawsuit aimed to put an end to the “illegal” lending program once and for all.

The publishers went on to request summary judgment and a declaration that this type of copying is a clear case of copyright infringement.

Opinion and Order

Earlier this week, the parties had the opportunity to back up their arguments during a New York Court hearing. District Court Judge John Koeltl questioned both sides on their summary judgment requests, before deliberating on his final decision.

After weighing the arguments. Judge Koeltl published his opinion and order yesterday. His order clearly sides with the publishers, whose request for summary judgment was granted. IA’s fair use defense and summary judgment in its favor was denied.

Courts typically weigh four factors when determining fair use. Judge Koeltl concludes that all four factors weigh strongly in favor of the publishers.

Starting with the first factor – whether the use is transformative – the order stresses that IA failed to show that its book lending operation meets the standard. The fact that only one patron at a time can borrow a book is irrelevant to the fair use question, the order notes.

“The crux of IA’s first-factor argument is that an organization has the right under fair use to make whatever copies of its print books are necessary to facilitate digital lending of that book, so long as only one patron at a time can borrow the book for each copy that has been bought and paid for,” Judge Koetl writes.

“But there is no such right, which risks eviscerating the rights of authors and publishers to profit from the creation and dissemination of derivatives of their protected works.”

The court fails to see how IA’s operation transforms the original work. The fact that IA is a non-profit organization isn’t a strong defense either, as the lending program still allows IA to benefit through donations and other means, without obtaining an appropriate license from the publishers.

“IA’s wholesale copying and unauthorized lending of digital copies of the Publishers’ print books does not transform the use of the books, and IA profits from exploiting the copyrighted material without paying the customary price,” Judge Koetl notes.

Competing With Free?

Profits and revenue are also relevant in determining the fourth fair use factor, which questions whether the library affects the original book market and existing revenues.

IA argued that this isn’t the case, as sales volumes fail to show a negative correlation with its lending service. Unconvinced by the argument, Judge Koetl says that IA’s program amounts to direct competition for licensed alternatives.

“In this case, there is a ‘thriving ebook licensing market for libraries’ in which the Publishers earn a fee whenever a library obtains one of their licensed ebooks from an aggregator like OverDrive.

“This market generates at least tens of millions of dollars a year for the Publishers. And IA supplants the Publishers’ place in this market.”

IA’s library offers a vastly cheaper alternative to licensed platforms, which allows libraries and the public to save money. However, it does so at the expense of the publishers and their authors, according to the court.

“It is equally clear that if IA’s conduct becomes widespread, it will adversely affect the potential market for the Works in Suit,” Judge Koetl writes.

IA is Liable for Copyright Infringement

Since the remaining fair use factors weigh clearly in favor of the publishers, IA’s fair use defense fails. As a result, the court concludes that the Internet Archive is indeed liable for copyright infringement.

The scale of the damages has yet to be established. IA asked for statutory damages to be remitted, citing its status as a nonprofit library. Judge Koeltl says that at this time, any decision on damages is premature.

Based on this order, it’s clear that IA’s ebook lending library won’t be allowed to continue in its current form. That said, the Archive still has the option to appeal.

In response to the order, IA’s Director of Open Libraries, Chris Freeland, confirmed that an appeal is forthcoming.

“We will keep fighting for the traditional right of libraries to own, lend, and preserve books. We will be appealing the judgment and encourage everyone to come together as a community to support libraries against this attack by corporate publishers.”

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Enlarge (credit: Walter Zerla via Getty Images)

Say you are a maker of computer graphics cards, under pressure from investors questioning your green credentials. You know what to do. You email your various departments, asking them to tally up their carbon emissions and the energy they consume. Simple enough. You write a report pledging a more sustainable future, in which your trucks are electrified and solar panels adorn your offices.

Good start, your investors say. But what about the mines that produced the tantalum or palladium in your transistors? Or the silicon wafers that arrived via a lengthy supply chain? And what of when your product is shipped to customers, who install it in a laptop or run it 24/7 inside a data center to train an AI model like GPT-4 (or 5)? Eventually it will be discarded as trash or recycled. Chase down every ton of carbon and the emissions a company creates are many times times higher than it first seemed.

Read 15 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Enlarge (credit: Corey Gaskin)

Garmin Forerunner 955

• From $499 at Garmin
• From $486 at Amazon

(Ars Technica may earn compensation for sales from links on this post through affiliate programs.)

If you're at all familiar with Garmin's wearables, you know that GPS-equipped running watches have always been the company's primary strength. Garmin's fitness watches have been a staple among athletes due to their features that aren't found on Fitbits and Apple Watches. The Forerunner series is still where the company introduces some of its most innovative tracking and training features.

The Forerunner 955 continues that tradition. It sits atop the Forerunner series as the most feature-packed watch in the bunch, and this year it gains some modern touches like a touchscreen and daily exercise readiness assessments (à la Fitbit's Daily Readiness feature, but free to users), while introducing new features not present on any other Garmin watch. That includes the higher-end Fenix series of watches, from which the Forerunner 955 is also starting to steal some cues, like solar-charging options and multi-band GPS.

We trained with the Forerunner 955 for a few weeks to see how its newest features improve on a platform we already love and to determine just how afraid Garmin should be about Apple or Fitbit catching up.

Read 39 remaining paragraphs | Comments