Law360 is providing free access to its coronavirus coverage to make sure all members of the legal community have accurate information in this time of uncertainty and change. Use the form below to sign up for any of our weekly newsletters. Signing up for any of our section newsletters will opt you in to the weekly Coronavirus briefing.
Sign up for our Intellectual Property newsletter
You must correct or enter the following before you can sign up:
Thank You!
Law360 (June 15, 2020, 6:33 PM EDT ) Following a copyright lawsuit filed by major book publishers, the Internet Archive is ending its National Emergency Library project that aimed to make more digital copies of books available during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Emergency project, which loosened restrictions on the group's existing Open Library of digital books, was supposed to run until the end of June, but will instead wrap up on Tuesday, the group said.
"We moved up our schedule because, last Monday, four commercial publishers chose to sue Internet Archive during a global pandemic," the group wrote in blog post last week announcing the shutdown.
As noted by the Internet Archive, the earlier-than-planned closure came after the filing of a copyright infringement lawsuit in New York on June 1 by Hachette Book Group Inc., HarperCollins Publishers LLC, John Wiley & Sons Inc. and Penguin Random House LLC.
The case called both Open Library and the National Emergency Library "willful digital piracy on an industrial scale."
"Its goal of creating digital copies of books and providing them to whomever wants to download them reflects a profound misunderstanding of the costs of creating books, a profound lack of respect for the many contributors involved in the publication process, and a profound disregard of the boundaries and balance of core copyright principles," the publishers wrote.
Under the broader Open Library project, the Internet Archive scans libraries' collections and allows users to digitally borrow books, but limits access to the actual number of physical books and puts users on a waiting list if a book is already checked out.
Launched in March, the Emergency project removed that restriction, allowing users to immediately access more books. The stated reason for the project was that many physical libraries were closed during the COVID-19 pandemic.
While it will make certain claims moot, the early closure of the Emergency project likely won't resolve the publishers' overall lawsuit. While the litigation appears to have been spurred by the relaxed restrictions, it targeted core functions of the Open Library project that existed before COVID-19, including its claims to "controlled" digital lending.
"IA claimed to limit the number of scanned copies of a title available for free download at any one time to the number of print books of that title in its collection," the lawsuit said. "No provision under copyright law offers a colorable defense to the systematic copying and distribution of digital book files simply because the actor collects corresponding physical copies."
A spokesman for the publishers declined to comment on Monday.
The publishers are represented by Elizabeth A. McNamara, Linda Steinman, John M. Browning and Meredith I. Santana of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP and Matthew J. Oppenheim and Scott A. Zebrak of Oppenheim & Zebrak LLP.
Counsel information for the Internet Archive wasn't immediately available.
The case is Hachette Book Group, Inc. et al. v. Internet Archive et al., case number 1:20-cv-04160, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
--Editing by Haylee Pearl.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
