Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 20:44:06 +0000

The Internet Archive's chief defense seems to be that what it is doing is in the public good and that copyright law is meant to serve the public good as the Constitution provides.  But that argument is more properly made in Congress, where public policy is made, not in the courts, which must focus on just interpreting what current law means.  It seems likely the Archive will lose in the courts; whether it can win in Congress remains to be seen.

Sandy Thatcher
________________________________________
From: "Jim O'Donnell" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 18:27:50 -0700

Several links for those following the publishers v. Internet Archive lawsuit over controlled digital lending:

IA formal response to suit:  https://archive.org/details/internet-archive-answer<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Farchive.org%2Fdetails%2Finternet-archive-answer&data=02%7C01%7Csgt3%40psu.edu%7C92287f4b56be4ce3207108d834365cf9%7C7cf48d453ddb4389a9c1c115526eb52e%7C0%7C1%7C637316755391053461&sdata=8XL6uTLLlTnyERQBjXsqGrlA%2BZ%2FHrGdSaIw4CndwGxg%3D&reserved=0>

IA blog posting:  https://blog.archive.org/2020/07/29/internet-archive-responds-to-publishers-lawsuit/<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fblog.archive.org%2F2020%2F07%2F29%2Finternet-archive-responds-to-publishers-lawsuit%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csgt3%40psu.edu%7C92287f4b56be4ce3207108d834365cf9%7C7cf48d453ddb4389a9c1c115526eb52e%7C0%7C1%7C637316755391063452&sdata=O%2BLqlmYde5z4i05O1%2BCFAJ8NgopRUkq2V03RTGSEmwc%3D&reserved=0>

PW summary of issues:  https://www.publishersweekly.com/binary-data/ARTICLE_ATTACHMENT/file/000/004/4462-1.pdf<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.publishersweekly.com%2Fbinary-data%2FARTICLE_ATTACHMENT%2Ffile%2F000%2F004%2F4462-1.pdf&data=02%7C01%7Csgt3%40psu.edu%7C92287f4b56be4ce3207108d834365cf9%7C7cf48d453ddb4389a9c1c115526eb52e%7C0%7C1%7C637316755391063452&sdata=jzvBk62PtUyZAD8oDc7pAYOZmOlS%2BkG76TfvcA49JUM%3D&reserved=0>

Both sides seem to be framing the issue in a way that lawsuits aren't especially well designed to resolve:  what is a library and what is the function of a library?  The Little Free Library Movement (https://littlefreelibrary.org/<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flittlefreelibrary.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csgt3%40psu.edu%7C92287f4b56be4ce3207108d834365cf9%7C7cf48d453ddb4389a9c1c115526eb52e%7C0%7C1%7C637316755391073449&sdata=pf0WTKFcK9fbxuL5g4U%2FxPNmap1zjNpqA%2FBmdImRxUI%3D&reserved=0>) captures the primal moment of sharing a few books in a small community, when "book" was a pretty simple and standard sort of object.  We're long, long past that in what libraries do but progress brings opportunity brings ambiguity.  Do we move forward by analogy to create those communities of sharing, or do we run up against hard boundaries past which that ideal won't be allowed to go?  Quite apart from the details of this case, that's what I think we're really talking about -- and whatever the upshot of the lawsuit, I doubt it will end the discussions.

Jim O'Donnell
ASU