Center for Democracy & Technology, Library Freom Project, and Public Knowlge. This brief focuses on the significant privacy issues at play in this case. “Readers should not have to choose to either forfeit their privacy or forgo digital access to information.
nor should libraries be forc to impose this choice on readers. CDL provides an ecosystem where all people, including those with mobility limitations and print disabilities, can pursue knowlge in a privacy-protective manner.” Read the full brief here.
Copia Institute This brief raises the important By eliminating
First Amendment considerations embodi in fair use, arguing that the district court decision rejecting Internet Archive’s fair use defense whatsapp number database copyright law in conflict with the Constitution. “Copyright law should want to promote access to works, because it does nothing to promote progress if the law incentives the creation of works that no one can actually enjoy. In this case, enabling the books that were already lawfully readable to be read is what copyright law should instead be glad for the Internet Archive to do.” Read the full brief here.
Copyright Scholars
In this brief, 11 prominent copyright scholars argue forcefully for the Second Circuit to overturn the district court’s decision. “to use CDL as a means of ensuring long-term affordable digital access to their collections, publishers threaten the core functions of the library—acquiring, preserving, and sharing information. Avoiding those public harms urges a finding of fair use.” Read the full brief here.
Book Study Group
Library Futures Project, EveryLibrary Institute, ReadersFirst, SPARC, ASERL, BLC, PALCI, Urban Libraries Unite and 218 mouse moving into the public domain librarians. This brief explains the history and china leads of CDL, how deeply embd the practice is today, and urges the appellate Court not to disrupt this long-standing and widespread practice.