Page:Hachette Book Group v. Internet Archive (2023).pdf/39

, 883 F.3d at 180. In this case, there is a “thriving ebook licensing market for libraries” in which the Publishers earn a fee whenever a library obtains one of their licensed ebooks from an aggregator like OverDrive. Pls.’ 56.1 ¶¶ 577–578. This market generates at least tens of millions of dollars a year for the Publishers. ¶¶ 170, 172. And IA supplants the Publishers’ place in this market. IA offers users complete ebook editions of the Works in Suit without IA’s having paid the Publishers a fee to license those ebooks, and it gives libraries an alternative to buying ebook licenses from the Publishers. Indeed, IA pitches the Open Libraries project to libraries in part as a way to help libraries avoid paying for licenses. Pls.’ 56.1 ¶ 383 (presentation IA gave to libraries asserting that pairing with IA means that “You Don’t Have to Buy It Again!”); ¶ 382 (different presentation promising that the Open Libraries project “ensures that a library will not have to buy the same content over and over, simply because of a change in format”). IA thus “brings to the marketplace a competing substitute” for library ebook editions of the Works in Suit, “usurp[ing] a market that properly belongs to the copyright-holder.”, 833 F.3d at 179.

It is equally clear that if IA’s conduct “becomes widespread, it will adversely affect the potential market for