“The most recent example in “The Publisher Playbook” of companies doing their utmost to limit what libraries can make available is the terrible lawsuit against the Open Library for daring to increase access to books during the Covid pandemic. Today, 20 March 2023, the Southern District Court of New York will be hearing the oral arguments in this important case.

The penultimate example of the new research is litigation against US state legislation promoting fair and equitable ebook access. Walled Culture wrote about this back in December 2021, when US publishers sued to stop a Maryland law that would require publishers to license ebooks on “reasonable terms”. Hardly unreasonable, you might have thought, but the publishers disagreed, sued – and unfortunately won….

The model language has been introduced in bills in two states, Massachusetts and Hawaii, but more are in the works, apparently. Of course, publishers are already trying to paint this approach as “unconstitutional”, and they will doubtless challenge proposed laws in the courts. And so the battle between libraries and the publishing industry continues….”

“Months after a final round of reply briefs was filed, a federal judge is now ready to hear oral arguments for summary judgment in a closely watched copyright case filed by four major publishers against the Internet Archive over its program to scan and lend library books.

In a brief order filed late last week, Judge John G. Koeltl set March 20 at 1 p.m. to hear arguments, which will be heard over the phone rather than in a Manhattan courtroom. 

The order ends months of waiting. The parties filed their initial cross motions for summary judgment on July 7, 2022, with each side asking the court to decide the case in their favor ahead of trial. A final round of reply briefs for summary judgment was filed on October 7, 2022. And it has been more than two years since four major publishers—Hachette, HarperCollins, Wiley, and Penguin Random House, organized by the Association of American Publishers—first filed its copyright infringement lawsuit, alleging that the Internet Archive’s controversial program to scan and lend books under an untested legal theory known as “controlled digital lending” is little more than a massive piracy operation “masquerading as a not-for-profit library.”

In their third and final reply brief, attorneys for the plaintiff publishers say the “undisputed facts and settled law” lead to the “inexorable conclusion” that IA’s scanning and lending of library books is copyright infringement on a massive scale….”

“Months after a final round of reply briefs was filed, a federal judge is now ready to hear oral arguments for summary judgment in a closely watched copyright case filed by four major publishers against the Internet Archive over its program to scan and lend library books.

In a brief order filed late last week, Judge John G. Koeltl set March 20 at 1 p.m. to hear arguments, which will be heard over the phone rather than in a Manhattan courtroom. 

The order ends months of waiting. The parties filed their initial cross motions for summary judgment on July 7, 2022, with each side asking the court to decide the case in their favor ahead of trial. A final round of reply briefs for summary judgment was filed on October 7, 2022. And it has been more than two years since four major publishers—Hachette, HarperCollins, Wiley, and Penguin Random House, organized by the Association of American Publishers—first filed its copyright infringement lawsuit, alleging that the Internet Archive’s controversial program to scan and lend books under an untested legal theory known as “controlled digital lending” is little more than a massive piracy operation “masquerading as a not-for-profit library.”

In their third and final reply brief, attorneys for the plaintiff publishers say the “undisputed facts and settled law” lead to the “inexorable conclusion” that IA’s scanning and lending of library books is copyright infringement on a massive scale….”