Internet Archive’s Copying of Protected Works Is Unconstitutional; Court Should Rule in Favor of Publishers in Hatchette v. Internet Archive, Says ITIF

WASHINGTON—As oral arguments begin in the long-awaited case of Hatchette v. Internet Archive, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), the leading think tank for science and technology policy, issued the following statement from Senior Policy Analyst Jaci McDole:

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York should (once again) uphold the constitutional rights of creators against the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s (EFF) repeated anti-copyright attacks. As ITIF writes, while anti-intellectual property (IP) activists claim that IP owners are attacking libraries and killing access to knowledge, resources, and other books not in circulation, they distort the simple facts: Internet Archive stole from creators and refused to compensate them.

Those who use another’s works should not be allowed to demand creators relinquish their rights solely so users may gain unfettered, free access to do whatever they please with that content and information. Yet, this unconstitutional attack is precisely what anti-IP advocates incessantly claim benefits society and creators. The U.S. Constitution provides creators certain rights and controls for a reason: to encourage the continued investment of creators’ time, money, energy, and other resources for the benefit of society. In other words, society’s benefit is continuous content creation, not free and unfettered access to every available work.

Internet Archive is not a noble, Robin Hood-like organization bullied by the hierarchy for helping the poor and needy, despite the story EFF and its anti-IP allies continue to spin. Rather, this is a simple case of an organization stealing from creators and then redirecting blame, hoping to garner sympathy for its wrongdoing rather than simply compensating rightsholders. The court should find in favor of the publishers.