recently, A federal district court in New York ruled, Internet Archive (Internet Archive) The Open Library Project violated copyright by publishing digital copies of millions of books online. Although the Internet Archive and participating libraries purchased printed copies of these books, And are largely available to borrowers on a one-to-one basis, But the court rejected the Internet Archive's fair use defense. The court also denied the Internet Archive's request to expand the scope of fair use jurisprudence, And make it clear that owners of printed works cannot simply digitize them and make them available to the public, Even when distribution is limited.

Whether the purpose and nature of the court's use of the Internet Archive has "convertibility" Extensive analysis was carried out. finally, The court held that, The Internet Archive only scans and distributes complete copies of copyrighted works to the public, This use does not have "convertibility" . The court carefully drew a distinction between the case and those in which defendants scan entire books so that online users can search for their contents, Because in those cases, The defendants have provided only excerpts to the public. Court ruling, Just changing the format of the work is not enough "convertibility" Use.

The court rejected the use of the Internet Archive with "convertibility" The argument of, Because it just makes the works available to people who might not have easy access to the library. The Internet Archive argues, Its open library function is similar to the Supreme Court's decision in SONY Corporation v. Universal Studios of the United States (Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios) Identified in "Time shift" , namely Betamax Home users of VCRS who record television content for later viewing do not infringe copyright. But in this case, The court held that the Open Library's practice of distributing works in its possession as substitutes for the original was not consistent with the relevant provisions Betamax The scope established by the ruling, Because fair use in this case is for authorized viewers to use at home. And in this case, The Internet Archive simply provides a substitute for books sold by publishers.

The court also rejected the Internet Archive's argument that its use was entirely non-commercial. Although the Internet Archive is a non-profit entity, But it is still engaged in commercial activities, Because it uses open libraries as a means of raising funds, And gets a portion of the profits from books sold through its service. The court held that, The reading of e-books by open library borrowers is non-commercial, This point "Basically irrelevant" , Because the Internet Archive is profiting from the use of e-books.

The court also rejected another argument by the Internet Archive, That is, its use conforms to the principle of first sale, That is, legitimate buyers of copyrighted works can resell that work. The Internet Archive argues, It controls the distribution of works on a one-to-one loan basis, That is, a digital copy of every print item owned by the Internet Archive or its participating libraries is only lent to one person at a time. however, There is nothing in the First Sale Principles that allows the Internet Archive to reproduce works for distribution without permission.

finally, Court determination, Open libraries target the same consumer groups as the plaintiff publishers, And it competes with those publishers. The court noted that, The evidence submitted by the Internet Archive to show that online libraries do not harm publishers' bottom lines is also irrelevant, Because it does not show any causal relationship between open libraries and publisher interests. moreover, Under any circumstances, None of this evidence can address the court's finding of no "convertibility" Large-scale replication.

How the court will enforce the ruling remains to be seen. Up to now, The Internet Archive's open library appears to be still functioning. The court directs the parties to 14 Within days to make recommendations for the implementation of its orders. Whether the Internet Archive will face high statutory damages remains to be seen. (Be compiled from www. lexology. com)

TRANSLATORS: Wang Dan　proofread: Rason group

　　disclaimer: This network reprint or compile the original articles are from the network, Does not represent the views of this website or confirm the authenticity of its content. If the source is mislabeled or the copyright of the article is involved, Please contact us, This website will be corrected in due course, delete, thank you.