My feelings on the Internet Archive vs. the Big Four Publishers

It's probably a mildly spicy take, but I 100% believe Internet Archive's National Emergency Library was a mistake, and they deserved the lawsuit.

BUT, I hope they win their appeal, or some good at a federal level comes out of this. Let me explain.

The National Emergency Library was a program Internet Archive launched to try to support the nation through the start of the pandemic, by releasing the requirements borrowing limit. Essentially, removing the waitlist or number of copies that could be borrowed at a time. They had built up their library of materials mostly by buying materials from closing libraries, but also from users uploading their own scans. This ended up going against established controlled digital lending models where you can only loan out the same number of physical copies that are in your possession.

This is vastly different from how most libraries function. Usually they receive copies from the publishers, that have a limited shelf life before they have to be repurchased. This period is typically about 26 checkouts per copy.

Internet Archive essentially went around the process setup by the publishers, and used the pandemic to try to usurp the status quo.

So, if it's fairly clear-cut, why do I wish something will change?

Simple, the entire system is broken. Hachette, HarperCollins, and then Penguin Group were both involved in the Apple ebook price fixing case. Penguin Random House and John Wiley weren't, but they don't mind the system. It's designed in a way for them to make profits first.

I currently live in a decent sized county library system. Let's take a look at one book I've been waiting for.

The book came out back in late September, and has consistently had between 50-70 on the hold line since. So, 6 months since launch and each copy has with a hard-set limit of 2 weeks per checkout (new release limitation). We can assume that each copy is due to expire about now. A digital item that expires. Can we just take a moment to realize how absurd that is? The publishers reasoning is the physical books need to be replaced after so much wear and tear, so why shouldn't the copy made of 1's and 0's!

That's what honestly needs to change. As someone who tries to read 2–3 books a month, and also is very unlikely to reread a book (if the story is memorable enough, I can remember it for quite a while). I'm less likely to buy a book outright, and more likely to use my local libraries for either digital or physical copies, unless it's something I was interested in, and I find it on sale. I'm fine with the concept of controlled digital lending and the normal restrictions of how long a book can be borrowed. What I have issue with is the library copy expiring after an arbitrary number of uses.

A slightly better, but still greedy option, would be to have the expiry time for each copy to 6 months, at the same rate they are being bought for now. This would allow a library to evaluate how many copies to renew, or how many more to add if a book is still popular. The libraries should be allowed to add additional copies at any time still to try to keep up with demand. In the case of Fairy Tale, my library should have been able to use this to get a few extra copies to lighten the time on the waitlist. Come September, if the waitlist is still about 20-30 deep, and they increased their copy count to 20, they might be able to scale back down to 10–12 copies. A year later they'd be able to evaluate again and maybe drop to 2–4 copies depending on how popular the book still is (being a King novel, there's a good chance).

That's why I want Internet Archive to win the appeal, not because I believe they were in the right, but because it might lead to a change for the better for everyone.