On Sept. 4, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a ruling against the Internet Archive’s book digitization program. The court affirmed a March 2023 judgment, declaring IA’s “controlled digital lending” practice — allowing free access to scanned books on a one-to-one basis with physical copies — was not protected under the fair use doctrine. This decision effectively limits the accessibility of digitized books, narrowing the scope of public access to educational materials and literature.

This case, Hachette v. Internet Archive, stemmed from a lawsuit filed by major publishing houses in June 2020. The legal action was prompted by IA’s “National Emergency Library” initiative, launched during the early stages of the coronavirus pandemic as a means of assistance to public school students and teachers when many physical libraries were forced to close their doors.

Daily headlines, sent straight to your inbox.

Subscribe to our newsletter to keep up with the latest at and around USC.

Although the emergency program was short-lived, the lawsuit persisted, focusing on the broader implications of IA’s digitization efforts and its potential disruption to the traditional publishing market.

This landmark ruling codifies a harsh reality already unfolding before our eyes: Millions of educational resources are being entirely eviscerated and plunged into a digital dark age. The IA’s defeat is just one facet of a broader assault on open access to information. 

Reputable news sites are erecting paywalls that disproportionately block low-income readers from accessing quality journalism. Medical journals are denying access to users who attempt to protect their privacy by blocking browser cookies. Public libraries, facing budget constraints, struggle to provide digital resources and subscriptions. Even attempts to navigate free library resources are hindered by a lack of guidance on navigating complex databases.

This restrictive approach extends beyond text as streaming platforms rapidly shrink their content libraries, pulling shows and films without notice. The concept of truly “owning” digital media has become an illusion, replaced by a system of temporary access through rapidly shifting subscription models. As content is removed or locked behind paywalls, audiences, and even the creatives making this content, can lose access to material entirely, further compounding the erosion of access to cultural and educational media.

The convergence of these factors creates an internet where information and content are increasingly locked behind digital walls or inaccessible altogether. As we witness the modern internet’s descent into uselessness, we must confront an inevitable reality: The internet, once hailed as a great equalizer and repository of human knowledge, is becoming a wasteland of misinformation, corporate interests and restricted access. This digital dark age threatens not only our ability to access information but also the very foundations of an informed and equitable society.

In an increasingly capitalistic world, where knowledge is commodified and access to information is often determined by one’s ability to pay, this ruling sets a dangerous precedent. It reinforces a system where information is not a public good but a private asset, accessible only to those with the means to afford it. 

As reputable news sources, academic journals and educational resources become less accessible, we risk creating an information vacuum that will inevitably be filled by less reliable, freely available sources. This shift endangers the foundations of informed public discourse and, by extension, an equitable society.

This ruling, far from being a mere legal setback, signals the creeping erosion of intellectual freedom in an age where information is increasingly commodified. What we are witnessing is not merely the curbing of a single project but the slow construction of an intellectual cage. A repository of human knowledge is being replaced by a fragmented and corporatized landscape, where the free flow of information is throttled by economic barriers.

This decision marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing struggle between open access advocates and the entrenched interests of the publishing industry. By reinforcing legal frameworks that prioritize corporate ownership over public accessibility, the court’s ruling not only restricts the I A’s ability to share digitized books but also sets a precedent that could curtail information sharing as we know it. 

In an era where digital platforms have the potential to democratize knowledge on a global scale, this verdict underscores a deep tension between technological advancement and traditional business models. As the digital landscape evolves, decisions like this will continue to shape the contours of public access, potentially reshaping the very nature of how knowledge is created, shared and consumed.