Maria Bustillos, [in an excellent *Nation* piece]( on the publisher lawsuit against the Internet Archive:

> Penguin Random House, together with fellow megapublishers Hachette, HarperCollins, and Wiley, [filed a lawsuit against the Internet Archive]( alleging “mass copyright infringement.” The Internet Archive [closed the National Emergency Library]( on June 16, citing the lawsuit and calling for the publishers to stand down. But the plaintiffs are continuing to press their claims, and are now seeking to close the whole Open Library permanently.

> [...]

> Publishers approve of libraries paying for e-book licenses because they’re temporary, just like your right to watch a movie on Netflix is temporary and can evaporate at any moment. In the same way, publishers would like to see libraries obliged to license, not to own, books—that is, continue to pay for the same book again and again. That’s what this lawsuit is really about. It’s impossible to avoid the conclusion that publishers took advantage of the pandemic to achieve what they had not been able to achieve previously: to turn the library system into a “reading as a service” operation from which they can squeeze profits forever.

Mark Bilby, back in June when the lawsuit was filed, called for libraries to [boycott the publishers]( They should, but here's another boycott: Wiley. Among the big houses that's suing Internet Archive, Wiley is the one with the giant scholarly-publishing footprint. In recognition of the Internet Archive's crucial role for scholarship, we should all stop submitting and reviewing for Wiley journals until they drop the lawsuit.