The benefits of libraries to our modern world cannot be overstated. Libraries are an essential component of our democratic and free society. But the rise of social media, and now AI, have resulted in an immediate threat to the public’s pursuit of the truth.
In a vigorous pursuit of truth, the library is our greatest ally.
The Internet Archive’s digital lending program serves this essential purpose. The very purpose of the copyright system: to encourage the intellectual enrichment of the public.
latest in a long history of innovations developed by libraries to serve the public’s need for information. In the past, publishers stood against microfilm and photocopiers, crying harm. They said they would be harmed by interlibrary loan. They lobbied for decades against libraries being allowed to provide access for the blind and print disabled. They were wrong. It took years, but eventually the law affirmed each of these things, and the public benefitted.
With this lawsuit, publishers have repeated those same claims of massive harm from controlled digital lending.
But this case has revealed one thing very clearly, after both sides have spent nearly three years, and millions of dollars looking at the actual market and usage data.
There has been no harm. These publishers have not shown the loss of even one dollar.
Even during COVID, when every physical library was closed and the Internetaccurate cleaned numbers list from frist database Archive stepped up to provide an Emergency Library.
Contrary to the publishers’ dire predictions there was simply no effect on their market. Not one dollar of harm.
When asked under oath, their own executives admit this. For example, Alison Lazarus, EVP and Director of Group Sales for Hachette, admitted that their theory of harm is only
“speculative.” Another executive, Skip Dye, SVP of Library Sales and Digital Strategy at Penguin Random House, candidly admitted that when it comes to market harm, quote: “I don’t have any evidence.”
Another agreed, stating: “There’s no factual analysis. It’s just one inference one could make.” That