Should the Internet Archive need publishers' permission to lend scans of in-copyright books it owns?

Why this label?

The case asks whether the Internet Archive should need publishers' permission to lend scans of in-copyright books it owns. Announcing the end of the litigation, Pallante says the Second Circuit's opinion leaves no room to argue that controlled digital lending is anything more than infringement, and that the public interest is served best "when authors and their publisher licensees can decide the terms on which they make their works available". That opposes lending scans without the publishers' permission, so we labeled it Condemned. The closest competing label is Challenged the characterization, since AAP puts the Archive's term for its lending in quotation marks; it loses because Pallante opposes the practice itself, calling it infringement.

This label describes the statement's response within the context above.

Why this label?

The case asks whether the Internet Archive should need publishers' permission to lend scans of in-copyright books it owns. On the day the Second Circuit ruled against it, the Archive says it is disappointed and "will continue to defend the rights of libraries to own, lend, and preserve books". That keeps up its defense of lending scanned books without the publishers' permission, so we labeled it Defended or excused. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional, since the Archive says it is still reviewing the opinion; it loses because it attaches no condition to its defense of library lending.

This label describes the statement's response within the context above.

Why this label?

The case asks whether the Internet Archive should need publishers' permission to lend scans of in-copyright books it owns. AAP President and CEO Maria A. Pallante says the Second Circuit's decision upholds the rights of authors and publishers "to license and be compensated for their books" and that "infringement is both costly and antithetical to the public interest". That opposes the Archive's lending of scans without permission, so we labeled it Condemned. The closest competing label is Challenged the characterization, since she calls controlled digital lending the defendant's self-crafted theory; it loses because she opposes the lending itself as infringement.

This label describes the statement's response within the context above.

Why this label?

The case asks whether the Internet Archive should need publishers' permission to lend scans of in-copyright books it owns. EFF's release says the Archive's appellate brief, which EFF filed with Morrison Foerster, explains that the Archive's controlled digital lending program "is a lawful fair use that preserves traditional library lending in the digital world". That defends lending scans of owned books without the publishers' permission, so we labeled it Defended or excused. The closest competing label is Challenged the characterization, since the brief says the district court wrongly equated controlled digital lending with posting scanned books online; it loses because the brief asks the appeals court to uphold the lending as lawful.

This label describes the statement's response within the context above.

Why this label?

The case asks whether the Internet Archive should need publishers' permission to lend scans of in-copyright books it owns. After the district court ruled for the publishers, AAP President and CEO Maria A. Pallante praises the court for "rejecting arguments that would have pushed fair use to illogical markers" and thanks public libraries that serve their communities "through lawful eBook licenses". That opposes the Archive's lending without the publishers' permission, so we labeled it Condemned. The closest competing label is Challenged the characterization; it loses because she rejects the Archive's fair-use defense outright rather than disputing how it is described.

This label describes the statement's response within the context above.

Why this label?

The case asks whether the Internet Archive should need publishers' permission to lend scans of in-copyright books it owns. At a press conference the Archive held before oral argument in the publishers' lawsuit, Kahle says the Archive's books "can be read by one reader at a time" and adds, "This is what libraries have always done." That defends the Archive's lending as ordinary library practice, so we labeled it Defended or excused. The closest competing label is Challenged the characterization, since he presents the lending as library lending rather than copying; it loses because his point is to justify the practice rather than to dispute a description of it.

This label describes the statement's response within the context above.