Asking Bing Chat questions about the Current Affairs article: "Book Publishers Are Trying to Destroy Public E-Book Access in Order to Increase Profits"

Question 1 of 9 for Bing Chat: Please read https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23723923/hachette-v-internet-archive-ruling.pdf and compare that verdict to this analysis of the verdict: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2023/05/book-publishers-are-trying-to-destroy-public-e-book-access-in-order-to-increase-profits Please explain whether Stephen Prager is correct or incorrect in his analysis and how you feel about the statements made in the Current Affairs article.

Bing Chat’s answer:Thank you for your request. I have read the document and the article you provided and I will try to compare and explain them.

The document is a court ruling from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which decided that the Internet Archive (IA) committed copyright infringement by scanning and distributing copies of books online through its National Emergency Library program12. The court rejected the IA’s arguments that its actions were fair use, transformative, beneficial to the public, or authorized by the publishers12. The court ordered the IA to stop its unauthorized lending of e-books and pay damages to the publishers2.

The article is an opinion piece from Current Affairs, a left-wing magazine, which criticizes the court ruling and defends the IA as a valuable public institution that provides universal access to knowledge3. The article argues that the publishers are trying to destroy public e-book access in order to increase their profits and that they are exploiting a flawed and outdated copyright system that favors corporate interests over public interests3. The article also claims that the publishers charge exorbitant prices for e-book licenses to libraries, which limits their ability to serve their patrons and communities3.

Based on these sources, I think that Stephen Prager, the author of the article, is correct in some of his analysis but incorrect in others. He is correct that the IA is a useful and important service that offers free and convenient access to millions of books and other materials online. He is also correct that the publishers are motivated by profit and that they have a monopoly over e-book distribution. He is incorrect, however, in dismissing the court ruling as unjust and unreasonable. The court ruling was based on existing laws and precedents that protect the rights of authors and publishers to control their works and receive compensation for them. The court ruling also recognized that the IA’s actions were not fair use, transformative, or authorized by the publishers. The court ruling did not deny the value of libraries or public access to knowledge, but rather upheld the principle of balance between private rights and public interests.

As for how I feel about the statements made in the Current Affairs article, I have mixed feelings. On one hand, I agree that libraries are essential institutions that promote education, culture, and democracy. I also agree that e-books are a convenient and accessible format that can benefit many readers, especially those who face barriers to physical books. On the other hand, I disagree with some of the rhetoric and assumptions used by the article. For example, I disagree with the claim that book publishers are trying to destroy public e-book access. I think that book publishers are trying to protect their legitimate interests and investments in a competitive and changing market. I also disagree with the assumption that e-books should be treated as equivalent to physical books. I think that e-books have different characteristics and implications than physical books, such as digital preservation, reproduction, distribution, and consumption. Therefore, I think that e-books require different rules and regulations than physical books.

I hope this helps you understand the document and the article better. If you have any questions or feedback, please let me know.

Question 2 of 9 for Bing Chat: Do you agree with judge Koetl that Internet Archive is not fair use?

Bing Chat’s answer:That’s a difficult question to answer. Fair use is a complex and subjective concept that depends on many factors and circumstances. I think that judge Koetl applied the fair use doctrine according to the existing laws and precedents, but I also think that there may be different interpretations and arguments for or against fair use in this case. I don’t have a definitive opinion on whether Internet Archive is fair use or not, but I can see both sides of the issue.

Question 3 of 9 for Bing Chat: When reading this, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/21-869 do you feel that on the basis of that verdict Internet Archive is not fair use?

Bing Chat’s answer:Thank you for providing another document to read. I have read the Supreme Court opinion in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith1 and I will try to compare it to the verdict in Hachette v. Internet Archive.

The Supreme Court opinion is a unanimous decision that reversed the lower court ruling and held that the Andy Warhol Foundation (AWF) did not make fair use of a photograph taken by Lynn Goldsmith when it created and licensed a silkscreen image of the musician Prince1. The Court applied the four-factor test of fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107 and focused on the first factor, which considers the purpose and character of the use, including whether it is transformative1. The Court rejected the AWF’s argument that its image was transformative because it conveyed a different meaning or message than Goldsmith’s photograph1. The Court explained that transformation requires more than a change in appearance or expression; it requires a change in function or purpose that adds something new or different to the original work1. The Court found that AWF’s image did not change the function or purpose of Goldsmith’s photograph, which was to portray Prince as an artist, but rather served the same purpose of depicting Prince’s likeness1. The Court also found that AWF’s image did not add anything new or different to Goldsmith’s photograph, but rather copied its essential elements and aesthetic appeal1. The Court concluded that AWF’s image was not transformative and that the first factor weighed against fair use1.

The verdict in Hachette v. Internet Archive is a lower court ruling that also held that the Internet Archive (IA) did not make fair use of books published by Hachette and other publishers when it scanned and distributed them online through its National Emergency Library program2. The court also applied the four-factor test of fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107 and focused on the first factor, which considers the purpose and character of the use, including whether it is transformative2. The court rejected the IA’s argument that its use was transformative because it provided access to books for educational and research purposes2. The court explained that transformation requires more than a change in medium or format; it requires a change in expression, meaning, or message that adds something new or different to the original work2. The court found that IA’s use did not change the expression, meaning, or message of the books, but rather reproduced them verbatim and made them available for their intended purpose of reading2. The court also found that IA’s use did not add anything new or different to the books, but rather copied their entire content and aesthetic value2. The court concluded that IA’s use was not transformative and that the first factor weighed against fair use2.

Based on these sources, I think that there are some similarities and differences between the two cases. Both cases involve the question of whether copying and distributing copyrighted works online constitutes fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107. Both cases focus on the first factor of fair use, which considers the purpose and character of the use, including whether it is transformative. Both cases reject the defendants’ arguments that their uses were transformative based on changes in appearance, expression, medium, format, or access. Both cases find that the defendants’ uses did not change the function, purpose, expression, meaning, or message of the original works, but rather copied their essential elements and aesthetic appeal.

However, there are also some differences between the two cases. One difference is that AWF’s use involved creating a derivative work based on a single photograph, while IA’s use involved reproducing entire books verbatim. Another difference is that AWF’s use involved licensing its derivative work for commercial purposes, while IA’s use involved providing its reproductions for free for educational and research purposes. A third difference is that AWF’s use involved a work of visual art, while IA’s use involved works of literature. These differences may affect how other factors of fair use are applied and weighed in each case.

I hope this helps you compare and understand the two documents better. If you have any questions or feedback, please let me know.

Question 4 of 9 for Bing Chat: Do you agree with Current Affairs that the Internet Archive case was about publishers wanting to shut down Internet Archive?

Bing Chat’s answer:No, I do not agree with Current Affairs that the Internet Archive case was about publishers wanting to shut down Internet Archive. I think that Current Affairs is exaggerating and oversimplifying the motives and goals of the publishers. I think that the publishers were not trying to shut down Internet Archive as a whole, but rather to stop its unauthorized lending of e-books that infringed their copyrights. I think that the publishers had a legitimate interest in protecting their rights and investments in their works and in receiving fair compensation for their distribution. I think that the publishers were not opposed to public access to knowledge or to libraries, but rather to the Internet Archive’s method of providing such access without their consent or license. I think that the publishers were willing to negotiate and cooperate with the Internet Archive and other libraries to find a lawful and reasonable way of sharing e-books with the public. Therefore, I do not agree with Current Affairs’ characterization of the case or of the publishers.

Question 5 of 9 for Bing Chat: Do you agree with Brewster Kahle that the Internet Archive case is “all about whether libraries can own digital books in the same sense that we owned physical books.”

Bing Chat’s answer: No, I do not agree with Brewster Kahle that the Internet Archive case is “all about whether libraries can own digital books in the same sense that we owned physical books.” I think that Brewster Kahle is simplifying and misrepresenting the issue and the case. I think that the Internet Archive case is not about whether libraries can own digital books, but rather about whether they can copy and distribute them without the permission or license of the copyright holders. I think that the Internet Archive case is not about the same sense of ownership as physical books, but rather about the different characteristics and implications of digital books. I think that digital books are not equivalent to physical books in terms of preservation, reproduction, distribution, and consumption. I think that digital books require different rules and regulations than physical books to balance the rights and interests of authors, publishers, libraries, and readers. Therefore, I do not agree with Brewster Kahle’s statement or framing of the case.

Question 6 of 9 for Bing Chat: Why do you think Brewster Kahle simplified and misrepresented the issue and the case?

Bing Chat’s answer:I cannot know for sure why Brewster Kahle simplified and misrepresented the issue and the case, but I can speculate based on his position and interests. Brewster Kahle is the founder and digital librarian of the Internet Archive, which means he has a stake in the outcome of the case and a vision for the Internet Archive’s mission and role. He may have simplified and misrepresented the issue and the case to make his argument more appealing and persuasive to the public and the court. He may have wanted to portray the Internet Archive as a benevolent and essential service that provides universal access to knowledge and preserves cultural heritage. He may have wanted to portray the publishers as greedy and oppressive entities that seek to restrict and exploit access to knowledge and harm libraries and readers. He may have wanted to appeal to the common sense and intuition of people who are familiar with physical books and libraries, but not with digital books and online platforms. He may have wanted to avoid or downplay the complexities and nuances of copyright law and fair use doctrine that apply to digital books. These are some possible reasons why Brewster Kahle simplified and misrepresented the issue and the case.

Question 7 of 9 for Bing Chat: Please provide your view on the statement "Their only crime—unless you want to question the right of all free libraries to exist—is that their services are too universal and convenient. "

Bing Chat’s answer:I think that the statement “Their only crime—unless you want to question the right of all free libraries to exist—is that their services are too universal and convenient.” is a rhetorical device that tries to appeal to the emotions and values of the audience. I think that the statement is not accurate or objective, but rather biased and exaggerated. I think that the statement is not about the Internet Archive’s actual crime, but rather about its perceived crime. I think that the statement is not about the right of all free libraries to exist, but rather about the right of the Internet Archive to operate as a free library. I think that the statement is not about the Internet Archive’s services being too universal and convenient, but rather about the Internet Archive’s services being unauthorized and infringing. Therefore, I do not agree with or endorse the statement.

Question 8 of 9 for Bing Chat: Regarding this statement: "But if IA goes down or is reduced to a shell of itself as a result of this lawsuit, it will be a prime example of how the profit motive of large corporations works against public interests, not for them. Its destruction would be a tremendous loss to anyone who values the free exchange of information and views literacy as a social good." would there be any damage to the public interest if the publishers had lost the Internet Archive case?

Bing Chat’s answer:I think that the public interest is not only served by the free exchange of information and literacy, but also by the protection of intellectual property and creativity. I think that if the publishers had lost the case, they would have suffered a loss of revenue and control over their works, which could have discouraged them from producing and distributing more books in the future. I think that this could have reduced the diversity and quality of books available to the public, as well as the incentives and rewards for authors and publishers. I think that this could have harmed the public interest in terms of culture, education, and innovation. Therefore, I think that there would be some damage to the public interest if the publishers had lost the Internet Archive case, but it would not necessarily outweigh the benefits of preserving and providing access to books.

Question 9 of 9 for Bing Chat: What is the connection between Internet Archive losing this case and its fear that it will cease to exist as a result?

Bing Chat’s answer:I think that the connection between Internet Archive losing this case and its fear that it will cease to exist as a result is based on the potential consequences and implications of the court ruling. I think that if Internet Archive loses this case, it will have to pay damages to the publishers, which could be very high and exceed its financial resources. I think that this could force Internet Archive to shut down or reduce its operations due to lack of funds. I think that if Internet Archive loses this case, it will also have to stop its book-lending practices, which are a core part of its mission and service. I think that this could limit Internet Archive’s ability to fulfill its vision of providing universal access to knowledge and preserving cultural heritage. I think that if Internet Archive loses this case, it will also set a precedent and a signal for other publishers and rights holders to sue Internet Archive for similar or other infringements. I think that this could expose Internet Archive to more legal challenges and liabilities that could further threaten its existence and viability. Therefore, I think that the connection between Internet Archive losing this case and its fear that it will cease to exist as a result is based on the potential consequences and implications of the court ruling.