Editing Internet Archive (section)

==Copyright issues==
In November 2005, free downloads of [[Grateful Dead]] concerts were removed from the site, following what seemed to be disagreements between some of the former band members. [[John Perry Barlow]] identified [[Bob Weir]], [[Mickey Hart]], and [[Bill Kreutzmann]] as the instigators of the change, according to an article in ''[[The New York Times]]''.<ref name="leeds">{{cite news |last1=Leeds |first1=Jeff |last2=Mayshark |first2=Jesse Fox |date=December 1, 2005 |title=Wrath of Deadheads stalls a Web crackdown |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/01/technology/01iht-deadheads.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150508194949/http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/01/technology/01iht-deadheads.html |archive-date=May 8, 2015}}</ref> [[Phil Lesh]], a founding member of the band,&nbsp;commented on the change in a November 30, 2005, posting to his personal web site:

{{blockquote|It was brought to my attention that all of the Grateful Dead shows were taken down from Archive.org right before [[Thanksgiving]]. I was not part of this decision making process and was not notified that the shows were to be pulled. I do feel that the music is the Grateful Dead's legacy and I hope that one way or another all of it is available for those who want it.<ref name="lesh">{{cite web| url = http://www.phillesh.net/philzonepages/friends_stuff/hotline-051130.html| title = An Announcement from Phil Lesh| first= Phil |last=Lesh| author-link = Phil Lesh| date = November 30, 2005| type=blog| work = Hotline| publisher = PhilLesh.net |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070715072102/http://www.phillesh.net/philzonepages/friends_stuff/hotline-051130.html|archive-date=July 15, 2007}}</ref>}}

A November 30 forum post from [[Brewster Kahle]] summarized what appeared to be the compromise reached among the band members. Audience recordings could be downloaded or streamed, but [[Mixing console|soundboard]] recordings were to be available for streaming only. Concerts have since been re-added.<ref name="kahle">{{cite web |last1=Kahle |first1=Brewster |last2=Vernon |first2=Matt |date=December 1, 2005 |title=Good News and an Apology: GD on the Internet Archive |url=https://archive.org/post/49553/good-news-and-an-apology-gd-on-the-internet-archive |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140806205924/https://archive.org/post/49553/good-news-and-an-apology-gd-on-the-internet-archive |archive-date=August 6, 2014 |work=Live Music Archive Forum |publisher=Internet Archive}} ''Authors and date indicate the first posting in the forum thread''.</ref>

In February 2016, Internet Archive users had begun archiving digital copies of ''[[Nintendo Power]]'', [[Nintendo]]'s official magazine for their games and products, which ran from 1988 to 2012. The first 140 issues had been collected, before Nintendo had the archive removed on August 8, 2016. In response to the take-down, Nintendo told gaming website ''[[Polygon (website)|Polygon]]'', "[Nintendo] must protect our own characters, trademarks and other content. The unapproved use of Nintendo's intellectual property can weaken our ability to protect and preserve it, or to possibly use it for new projects".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.polygon.com/2016/8/8/12405278/nintendo-power-issues-disappear-from-free-online-archive |title=Nintendo takes down Nintendo Power collection from Internet Archive after noticing it |last=Frank |first=Allegra |date=August 8, 2016 |website=[[Polygon (website)|Polygon]] |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160811134720/http://www.polygon.com/2016/8/8/12405278/nintendo-power-issues-disappear-from-free-online-archive |archive-date=August 11, 2016 }}</ref>

In August 2017, the [[Department of Telecommunications]] of the [[Government of India]] blocked the Internet Archive along with other file-sharing websites, in accordance with two court orders issued by the [[Madras High Court]],<ref name="gtech">{{cite web |date=9 August 2017 |title=Indian ISP Ban on Wayback Machine Lifted? Confirmation Awaited |url=https://www.guidingtech.com/70862/wayback-machine-ban-india-internet-archive/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200412131313/https://www.guidingtech.com/70862/wayback-machine-ban-india-internet-archive/ |archive-date=April 12, 2020 |access-date=12 April 2020 |publisher=Guiding Tech}}</ref> citing piracy concerns after copies of two [[Bollywood]] films were allegedly shared via the service.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40875528 |title=Bollywood blocks the Internet Archive |last=Kelion |first=Leo |date=August 9, 2017 |work=BBC |url-status=live |access-date=January 1, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180806052316/https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40875528 |archive-date=August 6, 2018 }}</ref> The [[HTTP]] version of the Archive was blocked but it remained accessible using the [[HTTPS]] protocol.<ref name="gtech" />

In 2023, the Internet Archive became a popular site for Indians to watch the first episode of ''[[India: The Modi Question]]'',<ref name="TheHindu">{{cite news |last=Deep |first=Aroon |date=23 January 2023 |title=Internet Archive takes down upload of BBC's Modi documentary |work=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet-archive-takes-down-upload-of-bbcs-modi-documentary/article66425460.ece |url-status=live |access-date=29 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230129001541/https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet-archive-takes-down-upload-of-bbcs-modi-documentary/article66425460.ece |archive-date=January 29, 2023}}</ref> a BBC documentary released on January 17 and banned in India by January 20.<ref>{{Cite news |title=Why India has banned this documentary about its Prime Minister Narendra Modi |publisher=[[SBS World News]] |date=January 27, 2023 |url=https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/why-india-has-banned-this-documentary-about-its-prime-minister-narendra-modi/6b947mrug |archive-url=https://archive.today/20241012041814/https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/why-india-has-banned-this-documentary-about-its-prime-minister-narendra-modi/6b947mrug |archive-date=October 12, 2024 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Pandey |first=Devesh K. |title=I&B Ministry blocks BBC documentary critical of PM Modi; Opposition slams 'censorship' |work=[[The Hindu]] |date=January 21, 2023 |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ib-ministry-orders-blocking-of-bbc-documentary-india-the-modi-question-critical-of-pm-modi-on-youtube-twitter/article66416654.ece |archive-url=https://archive.today/20230122091400/https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ib-ministry-orders-blocking-of-bbc-documentary-india-the-modi-question-critical-of-pm-modi-on-youtube-twitter/article66416654.ece |archive-date=January 22, 2023 |url-status=live}}</ref> The video was reported to have been removed by the Archive on January 23.<ref name="TheHindu" /> The Internet Archive then stated, on January 27, that they had removed the video in response to a BBC request under the [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]].<ref>{{cite web |last=Butler |first=Chris |date=January 27, 2023 |title=BBC Modi Documentary Removal |url=https://blog.archive.org/2023/01/27/bbc-modi-documentary-removal/ |access-date=January 29, 2023 |publisher=Internet Archive |archive-url=https://archive.today/20241012040904/https://blog.archive.org/2023/01/27/bbc-modi-documentary-removal/ |archive-date=October 12, 2024 |url-status=live}}</ref>

===Book publishers' lawsuit===
{{main|Hachette v. Internet Archive}}
The operation of the National Emergency Library was part of a lawsuit filed against the Internet Archive by four major book publishers—Hachette, HarperCollins, John Wiley & Sons, and Penguin Random House—in June 2020, challenging the copyright validity of the controlled digital lending program.<ref name="NYT-20230813" /><ref name="open library lawsuit"/><ref>{{Cite news|last=DiFeliciantonio|first=Chase|date=6 September 2021|title=He founded the Internet Archive with a utopian vision. That hasn't changed, but the internet has|work=[[San Francisco Chronicle]]|url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/tech/article/He-founded-the-Internet-Archive-with-a-Utopian-16434559.php|access-date=15 November 2021|archive-date=November 15, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211115095138/https://www.sfchronicle.com/tech/article/He-founded-the-Internet-Archive-with-a-Utopian-16434559.php|url-status=live}}</ref> In response, the Internet Archive closed the National Emergency Library on June 16, 2020, rather than the planned June 30, 2020, due to the lawsuit.<ref>{{cite web | url = https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/06/internet-archive-ends-emergency-library-early-to-appease-publishers/ | title = Internet Archive ends "emergency library" early to appease publishers | first = Timothy | last = Lee | date = June 11, 2020 | access-date = June 14, 2020 | work = [[Ars Technica]] | archive-date = June 14, 2020 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20200614074641/https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/06/internet-archive-ends-emergency-library-early-to-appease-publishers/ | url-status = live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Dwyer |first1=Colin |title=Publishers Sue Internet Archive For 'Mass Copyright Infringement' |url=https://www.npr.org/2020/06/03/868861704/publishers-sue-internet-archive-for-mass-copyright-infringement |access-date=16 October 2020 |agency=NPR |date=3 June 2020 |archive-date=October 30, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201030042353/https://www.npr.org/2020/06/03/868861704/publishers-sue-internet-archive-for-mass-copyright-infringement |url-status=live }}</ref> The plaintiffs, supported by the [[Copyright Alliance]],<ref>{{cite web |title=Copyright Alliance Statement on Book Publishers' Infringement Suit Against Internet Archive |url=https://copyrightalliance.org/news-events/press-releases/june-1-2020/ |website=Copyright Alliance |date=June 2020 |access-date=17 January 2021 |archive-date=January 22, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210122182325/https://copyrightalliance.org/news-events/press-releases/june-1-2020/ |url-status=live }}</ref> claimed in their lawsuit that the Internet Archive's actions constituted a "willful mass copyright infringement."<ref name="nytimes lawsuit june2020">{{cite news |last1=Harris |first1=Elizabeth |date=11 June 2020 |title=Internet Archive Will End Its Program for Free E-Books |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/11/books/internet-archive-national-emergency-library-coronavirus.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200615094026/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/11/books/internet-archive-national-emergency-library-coronavirus.html |archive-date=June 15, 2020 |access-date=15 June 2020 |publisher=NY Times}}</ref>

Judge Koeltl ruled on March 24, 2023, against Internet Archive in the case, saying the National Emergency Library concept was not fair use, so the Archive infringed their copyrights by lending out the books without the waitlist restriction. An agreement was then reached for the Internet Archive to pay an undisclosed amount to the publishers.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.techspot.com/news/99769-internet-archive-reaches-agreement-publishers-digital-book-lending.html|title=The Internet Archive reaches an agreement with publishers in digital book-lending case|last=Maruccia|first=Alfonso|date=14 August 2023|publisher=Tech Spot}}</ref> The Internet Archive appealed the ruling.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hollister |first=Sean |date=2023-03-25 |title=The Internet Archive has lost its first fight to scan and lend e-books like a library |url=https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/24/23655804/internet-archive-hatchette-publisher-ebook-library-lawsuit |access-date=2023-03-25 |website=The Verge |language=en-US |archive-date=March 25, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230325001705/https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/24/23655804/internet-archive-hatchette-publisher-ebook-library-lawsuit |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Hernandez |first1=Joe |title=A judge sided with publishers in a lawsuit over the Internet Archive's online library |url=https://www.npr.org/2023/03/26/1166101459/internet-archive-lawsuit-books-library-publishers |access-date=27 March 2023 |publisher=NPR |date=26 March 2023 |archive-date=March 27, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230327010123/https://www.npr.org/2023/03/26/1166101459/internet-archive-lawsuit-books-library-publishers |url-status=live }}</ref> On September 4, 2024, the [[U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit]] upheld the district court's ruling, calling the Internet Archive's argument that they were shielded by fair use doctrine "unpersuasive".<ref name="wired-4sep2024">{{cite magazine |last1=Knibbs |first1=Kate |title=The Internet Archive Loses Its Appeal of a Major Copyright Case |url=https://www.wired.com/story/internet-archive-loses-hachette-books-case-appeal/ |access-date=September 4, 2024 |magazine=[[Wired (magazine)|WIRED]] |date=September 4, 2024}}</ref>

=== Music publishers' lawsuit ===
In August 2023, the [[music industry]] corporations [[Universal Music Group]] (UMG), [[Sony Music]] and [[Concord (entertainment company)|Concord]] sued the Internet Archive over its Great 78 Project, asserting the project was engaged in copyright infringement. The Great 78 Project stores digitized versions of pre-1972 songs and albums from 78&nbsp;rpm [[phonograph record]]s, for "the preservation, research and discovery of 78rpm records." The project had started in 2016, when pre-1972 recordings had not been protected by copyright; in 2018, the U.S. Congress passed the [[Music Modernization Act]] (MMA) which enabled [[Legal remedy|legal remedies]] for unauthorised use of pre-1972 recordings until 2067, thus effectively covering them with copyright.<ref name="MIP">{{cite news |title=Internet Archive could face major hurdles in latest case |work=[[Managing Intellectual Property]] |date=August 17, 2023 |url=https://www.proquest.com/docview/2865693633|id={{ProQuest|2865693633}} }}</ref>

UMG and Sony had been the two largest companies in this sector for more than a decade, with respective market shares of 31.8% and 22.1% in 2023.<ref>{{citation |title=Digital and physical revenue market share of the largest record companies worldwide from 2012 to 2023 |work=[[Statista]] |date=May 29, 2024 |url=https://www.statista.com/statistics/422926/record-companies-market-share-worldwide-physical-digital-revenues |archive-url=https://archive.today/20241012025203/https://www.statista.com/statistics/422926/record-companies-market-share-worldwide-physical-digital-revenues/ |archive-date=October 12, 2024 |url-status=live}}</ref> Concord was a rapidly expanding music business closely partnered with UMG since its transformation into Concord Music Group in 2004<ref name="BV">{{cite interview |last=Valentine |first=Bob |interviewer=Tim Ingham |title=Concord has $550m in fresh funding, a recent expansion in Australasia and now a new CEO. What's its next move? |publisher=[[Music Business Worldwide]] |date=July 27, 2023 |url=https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/concord-has-550m-in-fresh-funding-a-recent-expansion-in-australasia-and-now-a-new-ceo-whats-its-next-move |archive-url=https://archive.today/20241012030919/https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/concord-has-550m-in-fresh-funding-a-recent-expansion-in-australasia-and-now-a-new-ceo-whats-its-next-move/ |archive-date=October 12, 2024}}</ref> and backed since at least 2000 by [[J.P. Morgan & Co.|J.P. Morgan]].<ref>{{cite news |title=Concord Raises $600M for Continued Expansion, Assigned B1/B+ Corporate Ratings |work=[[Business Wire]] |date=August 18, 2020 |url=https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200818005101/en/Concord-Raises-600M-for-Continued-Expansion-Assigned-B1B-Corporate-Ratings |archive-url=https://archive.today/20241012033246/https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200818005101/en/Concord-Raises-600M-for-Continued-Expansion-Assigned-B1B-Corporate-Ratings |archive-date=October 12, 2024 |url-status=live}}</ref> It was the first music company to perform an [[Asset-backed security|asset-backed]] [[securitization]], led by [[Apollo Global Management]], in December 2022. Its assets consisted of over 1 million copyrights to music older than 18 months.<ref>{{cite news |last=Stassen |first=Murray |title=Concord prices $1.8bn bond offering backed by over 1m music copyrights |work=[[Music Business Worldwide]] |date=December 8, 2022 |url=https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/concord-prices-1-8bn-bond-offering-backed-by-over-1m-music-copyrights |archive-url=https://archive.today/20230110185414/https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/concord-prices-1-8bn-bond-offering-backed-by-over-1m-music-copyrights/ |archive-date=January 10, 2023 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Arroyo |first1=Carmen |last2=Williams |first2=Charles E. |title=Apollo to Lead Bond Sale Tied to Phil Collins, R.E.M. Royalties |work=[[Bloomberg News]] |date=November 29, 2022 |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-29/apollo-to-sell-bonds-backed-by-phil-collins-r-e-m-royalties |archive-url=https://archive.today/20221130091903/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-29/apollo-to-sell-bonds-backed-by-phil-collins-r-e-m-royalties |archive-date=November 30, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> According to its CEO Bob Valentine, Concord derived about 85% of its revenue "from catalog, rather than newly-developed, music". As Valentine stated in his first interview, "The phenomenon of artists' IP has never been more liquid; it is now a real and proven asset class. Investment bankers are focused on it, financiers are financing it, and then there's entities like us, that know how to buy rights, but also know how to manage them and have the relationships to do so."<ref name="BV" /> The share of catalog music in total album equivalent consumption in the United States rose from 62.8% to 72.6% between 2019 and 2023.<ref>{{citation |last=Richter |first=Felix |title=New Music Plays Second Fiddle to Catalog Titles |work=[[Statista]] |date=February 23, 2024 |url=https://www.statista.com/chart/27679/current-versus-catalog-music-in-total-album-consumption-in-the-us/ |archive-url=https://archive.today/20241014165114/https://www.statista.com/chart/27679/current-versus-catalog-music-in-total-album-consumption-in-the-us/ |archive-date=October 14, 2024 |url-status=live}}</ref>

The publishers are seeking statutory damages for nearly 4,142 songs named in the suit, with a maximum possible fine of $621&nbsp;million.<ref name="Blistein">{{cite magazine |last=Blistein |first=Jon |title=Internet Archive: Inside the $621 Million Legal Battle for the 'Soul of the Internet' |magazine=[[Rolling Stone]] |date=September 29, 2024 |access-date=2024-10-01 |url=https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/internet-archive-major-label-music-lawsuit-1235105273/}}</ref> The Internet Archive has argued that the primitive sound quality of the original recordings falls within the doctrine of "fair use" to digitize for preservation, that the number of downloads is so small it has almost no impact on the publishers' revenue, and over 95% of the collection is not readily available anywhere else.<ref name="Blistein" /> The plaintiffs said in response, "if ever there were a theory of fair use invented for litigation, this is it."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://completemusicupdate.com/internet-archives-crackle-based-fair-use-defence-in-copyright-case-is-perverted-say-labels/|title=Internet Archive's crackle based 'fair use' defence in copyright case is perverted, say labels|publisher=Complete Music Update|access-date=15 April 2024|date=23 February 2024|first=Chris|last=Cooke}}</ref> According to a legal source at [[Mayer Brown]], the music publishers' case could be challenged as [[Constitutionality|unconstitutional]], since the granting of copyright to pre-1972 works in the MMA only benefitted record companies without having a systemic effect.<ref name="MIP" />