Page:Hachette Book Group v. Internet Archive (2023).pdf/44

 the relevant market, in this case the market for authorized library ebook licenses. , 11 F.4th at 51. That harm here is evident.

It is also irrelevant to assessing market harm in this case that IA and its Partner Libraries once purchased print copies of all the Works in Suit. The Publishers do not price print books with the expectation that they will be distributed in both print and digital formats, Pls.’ 56.1 ¶ 92, and “[a]ny allegedly positive impact of [a] defendant’s activities on [the] plaintiffs’ prior market in no way frees [the] defendant to usurp a further market that derives from the reproduction of the plaintiffs’ copyrighted works.”, 92 F. Supp. 2d at 352;, 150 F.3d at 111. The Publishers are entitled to revenue from all formats of the Works in Suit, regardless whether IA lawfully acquired the Works in print first.

Finally, the Court must consider “the public benefits [IA’s] copying will likely produce.”, 11 F.4th at 50. IA argues that its digital lending makes it easier for patrons who live far from physical libraries to access books and that it supports research, scholarship, and cultural participation by making books widely accessible on the Internet. But these alleged benefits cannot outweigh the market harm to the Publishers. “Any copyright infringer may claim to benefit the public by increasing