Internet Archive functions as a digital library. They own a certain amount of copies for a book, scan those copies, and only loan out the amount they have, preventing the abuse of unlimited downloads compared to other free book sites on the web. In 2020, major book publishers, including Hachette, sued IA for copyright infringement. The case finally settled in 2024 when IA failed to petition in the allotted time, a victory for the publishers. 

By setting themselves apart from other free sites through their unique loaning program and aligning more with an e-book library system, IA believed this ruling to be a significant loss for those who do not have access to well-funded libraries and the opportunity of accessible knowledge. Read their full statement here.

The court assessed the components of fair use and concluded that IA was not attempting anything revolutionary with their loan system nor were they doing much for the accessibility of the knowledge. Additionally, despite not charging consumers, IA was still making a profit off of their loans. Read more of the court’s analysis of fair use here.

Many readers, especially students, are guilty of using some sort of online platform to obtain books that were not authorized to be distributed. While the court’s decision is understandable from a copyright perspective, is IA’s system a more ethical way of online book distribution as opposed to the unlimited downloadable access format?

In 2020, Penguin Random House– the world’s largest publisher, proposed to merge with Simon & Schuster, when its parent company Paramount Global announced plans to sell the publisher, deeming it a non-valuable asset for their new video-streaming industry approach. In 2022, U.S. District Court Judge Florence Y. Pan ultimately prevented Penguin Random House from moving forward with the deal after the Department of Justice sued, citing lower levels of competition and author pay as consequences of moving forward. 

Merging the two would have turned the Big Five into the Big Four, allowing Penguin Random House to place themselves even higher at the top. A case like this calls for reflection of the dangers of conglomerates in publishing and demands assessment of the industry and market. With mega publishers controlling over half the market, independent presses and others who are part of the Big Five would face struggles with pushing their books out. Additionally, authors would have fewer options for imprints to turn to and would receive lower advances due to fewer biddings.  

This was a huge win for the publishing industry as it showed the administration blocking a merger that would have done great monetary wise, but ultimately threatened what publishing is all about (or ideally should be about), which is authenticity, diversity, a fair market, and releasing important art.