A Copyright Lawsuit Threatens To Kill Free Access To Internet Archive's Library of Books (popsci.com) 50
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Popular Science: Internet Archive, a non-profit digital library and a massive repository of online artifacts, has been collecting mementos of the ever-expanding World Wide Web for over two decades, allowing users to revisit sites that have since been changed or deleted. But like the web, it too has evolved since its genesis, and in the aughts, it also began to offer a selection of ebooks that any internet user can check out with the creation of a free account. That latter feature has gotten the organization in some trouble. Internet Archive was sued by a suite of four corporate publishers in 2020 over copyright controversies -- with one side saying that what Internet Archive does is preservation, and the other saying that it's piracy, since it freely distributes books as image files without compensating the author. Last week, the ongoing case entered a new chapter as the nonprofit organization filed a motion for summary judgment, asking a federal judge to put a stop to the lawsuit, arguing that their Controlled Digital Lending program "is a lawful fair use that preserves traditional library lending in the digital world" since "each book loaned via CDL has already been bought and paid for." On Friday, Creative Commons issued a statement supporting Internet Archive's motion.
In 2006, Internet Archive started a program for digitizing books both under copyright and in the public domain. It works with a range of global partners, including other libraries, to scan materials onto its site (Cornell University made a handy guide on what works fall under copyright vs. the public domain). For copyrighted books, Internet Archive owns the physical books that they created the digital copies from and limits their circulation by allowing only one person to borrow a title at a time. Book publishers, namely Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins, John Wiley Sons, and Penguin Random House, were not keen on this practice, and they have been seeking financial damages for the 127 books (PDF) shared under copyright. Vox estimated that if the publishers win, Internet Archive would have to pay $19 million, which is about "one year of operating revenue."
In the most recent filings, the publishers accused Internet Archive of amassing "a collection of more than three million unauthorized in-copyright ebooks -- including more than 33,000 of the Publishers' commercially available titles -- without obtaining licenses to do so or paying the rightsholders a cent for exploiting their works. Anybody in the world with an internet connection can instantaneously access these stolen works via IA's interrelated archive.org and openlibrary.org websites." In its defense, Internet Archive, which is being represented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says that "libraries have been practicing CDL in one form or another for more than a decade," and that Internet Archive lends its digitized books on an "owned-to-loaned basis, backstopped by strong technical protections to enforce lending limits."
In 2006, Internet Archive started a program for digitizing books both under copyright and in the public domain. It works with a range of global partners, including other libraries, to scan materials onto its site (Cornell University made a handy guide on what works fall under copyright vs. the public domain). For copyrighted books, Internet Archive owns the physical books that they created the digital copies from and limits their circulation by allowing only one person to borrow a title at a time. Book publishers, namely Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins, John Wiley Sons, and Penguin Random House, were not keen on this practice, and they have been seeking financial damages for the 127 books (PDF) shared under copyright. Vox estimated that if the publishers win, Internet Archive would have to pay $19 million, which is about "one year of operating revenue."
In the most recent filings, the publishers accused Internet Archive of amassing "a collection of more than three million unauthorized in-copyright ebooks -- including more than 33,000 of the Publishers' commercially available titles -- without obtaining licenses to do so or paying the rightsholders a cent for exploiting their works. Anybody in the world with an internet connection can instantaneously access these stolen works via IA's interrelated archive.org and openlibrary.org websites." In its defense, Internet Archive, which is being represented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says that "libraries have been practicing CDL in one form or another for more than a decade," and that Internet Archive lends its digitized books on an "owned-to-loaned basis, backstopped by strong technical protections to enforce lending limits."
Sued by a suite of four corporate publishers (Score:5, Interesting)
...since it freely distributes books as image files without compensating the author.
I seriously doubt they are paying their lawyers on the author's behalf.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the authors or their estates won't see a dime.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Similarly, since early 1800s plantation owners in the southern USA made sure their African-American workers were always fed and housed, accusations of slavery are hand-waving bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not shilling. I'm responding to "I've got three cats" who is saying the authors have no beef because of their contracts. I'm saying that assuming these contracts properly represent the interests authors is equivalent to saying the working conditions of black plantation workers before the Civil War properly represent their interests. I believe "I've got three cats" who I was responding to is your shill.
I'm sorry you misunderstood me.
Anyone got a link (Score:2)
I wanna know if this is a good pirate source.
Re:Anyone got a link (Score:5, Informative)
If you go to https://openlibrary.org/ [openlibrary.org] you can search for the books listed; from a spot check of a few books listed in that PDF it looks like they're currently labeled "Not In Library", which I'm guessing means that they've been removed due to this lawsuit.
The reading interface really isn't as convenient as a paper book or a well-formatted ebook, so as a "pirate source" of current books it's probably not great (you'd be better off looking on the usual pirate sites.) But they've got a fantastic selection of older out-of-print books ... books that otherwise you'd be stuck trying to find a used paperback copy for an exorbitant price, which of course doesn't benefit the author at all. I've used it to read a few books that I liked as a child to my kids, that otherwise I wouldn't have been able to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Last I checked, the books were encumbered with DRM, just like all other on-line libraries are doing.
Typically Libraries are charged much higher fees for books they lend, whether in physical form or ebook. Ebooks in particular I understand are very expensive for a library to "purchase." I'm not clear whether archive.org paid the usual library extortion fee or not.
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding was these were scans they did of the physical books that were purchased.
Re:save free information!!!! (Score:4)
How exactly would that change anything? Authors already get royalties for the printed books and Internet Archive only lends ebooks scanned from printed books in their possession.
Re: save free information!!!! (Score:2)
another reason why NFTs would make sense for libraries
Baldercrap! There are no reasons why that scam would help libraries.
still provide creator with royalties,
US libraries at least don't typically pay royalties. And certainly wouldn't directly to the person entitled to them.
Library of Congress (Score:3)
The Library of Congress often weighs in copyright cases involving libraries like this, and they do have some pull as they influence copyright regulations. I don't see where they have done so here...
Why would they do this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I completely agree. And unless they have some proprietary technology that can remotely delete the file after the user has borrowed it, then their claims of "Only one person can borrow it at a time" sound like BS.
Our library had some connection to Amazon Kindles, and it effectively controls how long you have the book for and it can remotely delete it. But it relies on that connection to Amazon to really fulfill it. Anything less sounds like it just allows people to download scanned copies.
I don't know wh
Re:Why would they do this? (Score:5, Informative)
Our library had some connection to Amazon Kindles, and it effectively controls how long you have the book for and it can remotely delete it.
Which is why you would be insane to buy anything in a Kindle edition if you may want to consult it or re-read it later. If you just want to read it once and don't care what happens to it afterwards, take the risk by all means.
https://www.theguardian.com/te... [theguardian.com]
The point is that, even after paying for a Kindle edition, you do not own it in any meaningful sense. Rather like Windows, come to think of it... I wonder if there is any common factor.
Re:Why would they do this? (Score:5, Informative)
"Unless they have some proprietary technology?" [archive.org] So you have no idea how the Internet Archive's system works, but you'll comment anyway.
Imagine a world where the Internet Archive could use the same technology as your local library to effectively control how long you have the book... a world exactly like this one.
Because they're a library, doing the thing that libraries are purpose-built to do.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I'm aware, the books lent from archive.org are encumbered with DRM just like those lent from any other library. The borrowing mechanism is the same as other libraries. The difference here is that archive.org probably didn't pay the extortion fees that other libraries do when they purchased the ebooks. Libraries are typically charged exorbitantly high fees per ebook by the publishers.
Re:Why would they do this? (Score:5, Informative)
The difference is that ebooks are sold as software under either consumer licenses which don't allow lending at all, or library licenses that are considerably more expense and restricted including things like bundling requirements and two year terms [authorsguild.org].
So the Internet Archive is buying print books, which are subject to that pesky first sale doctrine, then format shifting them into scanned and OCRed eBook formats. And the publishers really hate that.
Re: (Score:2)
So the Internet Archive is buying print books, which are subject to that pesky first sale doctrine, then format shifting them into scanned and OCRed eBook formats. And the publishers really hate that.
The first sale doctrine is of no help to them here. 17 USC 109(a) reads:
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy ... lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy ....
The word 'copy' is defined in 17 USC 101 as:
"Copies" are material objects ... in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term "copies" includes the material object ... in which the work is first fixed.
The key words are "material objects." Paper books are material objects. So too optical disks. Even computer hard drives or memory cards. But electronic files by themselves are not.
So once you get through conducting a fair use analysis to see if the format shifting here is a fair use -- because while any use can be a fair one, not every use is, and you have to run through the analysis each
Re: (Score:2)
The bolded language is wrong, under Authors Guild v. Google, Inc. and Authorsâ(TM) Guild v. Hathitrust, but other t
Re: (Score:2)
No, the Author's Guild cases are both about format shifting books for the purpose of making search engines, not for lending out entire copies of the books. In fact, that they don't do that was an important part of why it was held to be fair use.
To the extent that you're zeroing in that scanned book text can be saved to a server, I was talking about tangible copies that were capable of being lent out since that's the context here.
Furthermore, your market analysis concerning the "potential market for the work" focuses solely on the market for eBooks, but "the work" is both eBooks and physical books. Since each copy of a scanned eBook comes from a physical book which is not resold or lent, there's no effect on the market for "the work."
The market is for electronic lending copies. If libraries can just scan and l
Re:Why would they do this? (Score:5, Informative)
The issue is that the system you described relies on the notion that libraries could lend an ebook when they had a physical copy of the book (that wasn't also simultaneously lent out). While the publishers weren't happy with the format shifting, they haven't made a big stink about it because it's probably in line with the Sony v. Universal (i.e. "Betamax") decision from 1984 where the Supreme Court held that time shifting was not copyright infringement. The potential downside of suing over it (much expanded consumer right to format shifting) far outweighed the potential upside (stopping libraries from lending small quantities of books to small quantities of people, which, while many publishers would absolutely love to do, ultimately is noise in their bottom line).
That is, until 2020, when the Archive decided that "because covid" they could lend as many copies as they wanted simultaneously--i.e. they were no longer format shifting, they were offering unlimited copies of a work they did not own the rights to. The publishers predictably sued over this, and the assholes currently running the Archive could not have given them a better set of facts to work with. They're almost certainly going to lose, and it's possible that they could lose big and take the entire system of libraries lending ebooks with them.
Re: (Score:2)
the notion that libraries could lend an ebook when they had a physical copy of the book (that wasn't also simultaneously lent out)
To my knowledge, this wasn't being done; libraries that lend out e-books pay to get licenses that permit it since they are not actually lent -- they're being copied.
Re: (Score:2)
the notion that libraries could lend an ebook when they had a physical copy of the book (that wasn't also simultaneously lent out)
To my knowledge, this wasn't being done; libraries that lend out e-books pay to get licenses that permit it since they are not actually lent -- they're being copied.
This is true, but in addition to licensed ebooks, libraries have been format shifting for years.
Re: (Score:2)
The Plaintiffs in this very lawsuit appear to disagree, since in their memorandum in support of summary judgment they wrote:
IA posits that it is lawful for a library to make digital copies of any print book it acquires and distribute that digital copy over the internet, without a license, as long as (a) the library uses digital rights man
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't being done ... by other libraries that obey copyright law.
Obviously the Internet Archive is doing it; that's what the entire article is about.
Re:Why would they do this? (Score:5, Informative)
"And unless they have some proprietary technology that can remotely delete the file after the user has borrowed it, then their claims of "Only one person can borrow it at a time" sound like BS."
They do. They use Adobe DRM, like all the libraries using the Overdrive system.
This gives you a two week loan, which self destructs at the end of the period, if not renewed.
Then for some books, you can only borrow for one hour and read with their web application. You can renew as long as there is no other request for it.
The really valuable thing about Open Library is if you are working on some project which means you want to consult various early editions of a work. You want to review early editions of, eg, Fleurs du Mal. But you may not have access to a well equipped university library, and even if you do, they are very unlikely to have all the editions which Open Library has.
The mistake they made was not in their basic way of operating. It was that during the pandemic they took the unwise step of allowing the loan of multiple copies. That is, normally they lend the copy they have and that means no more loans than the number of copies. During the pandemic as a response to home schooling and closure of classes they loaned multiple copies, while still having only one physical copy. That was certainly a copyright violation. Perhaps understandable, and perhaps done from the best of motives, but most unwise. They dropped that when the suit was filed, and that is also when they introduced the one hour loan.
For a lot of research where you are consulting texts, one hour is all you need to determine whether this is a book you have to buy (if you can even find it) or get on inter library loan and have available for a couple of weeks. This is such a time saver.
I guess the thing to think about, when suing Open Library, is that they are responsible lenders. Their basic model respects copyright and gives a great service to researchers. Most of their operation, which costs publishers nothing because its for specialist or out of copyright books, will not be recreated if they are closed. That is the valuable part for researchers.
But the part that offers in-copyright loans will be replicated, and by much less honorable organizations. And this is something that will affect publishers much worse than any damage Open Library will do, in its present scrupulous mode of operation.
that DRM better work with screen readers or ADA (Score:2)
that DRM better work with screen readers or there may be ADA lawsuits.
Re: (Score:2)
Its not a function of the DRM. Its a function of Adobe Reader, and yes, that does support text to speech.
But many of the books on Open Library are scanned PDFs, so the text to speech may have errors.
You can for example read a lot of the books as epub instead of PDFs but its so full of errors from the OCR that its not really worth it. And if you are using old editions, where the exact detail of the text is the interesting thing, its hopeless for scholarly purposes. I imagine text to speech on such scanned
Re: (Score:1)
Same reason regular libraries lend modern widely accessible novels.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They took issue now because the Archive decided that they were going to lend unlimited copies of format shifted works, rather than one per physical copy they possessed which, while the publishers absolutely do not like, they more or less tolerated because the risks of suing over it were far higher than the benefits of stopping the practice.
The assholes at the Archive could not have given them a better set of facts to work with. They are going to lose, and the fallout from their loss may be significant (kil
Re: (Score:1)
Libraries buy and lend such books all the time, we're merely very used to it.
Initially, there was considerable push-back from publishers in England when private individuals donated their libraries to "book lending societies", now called "public libraries". There's quite a history there: for example, bookplates came into much wider use (https://westphaliapress.org/2018/02/16/the-rise-of-the-book-plate/)
Re: Why would they do this? (Score:3)
Yes, it's a sure loser. Everyone (not just libraries) can freely lend tangible, lawfully-made copies of works without permission or payment.
There's no such exception to copyright for doing so electronically. Computers have to copy data constantly; it's in their nature. When you read this post you aren't borrowing it, I wrote it on my phone, instructed Slashdot to copy it by tapping on the Submit button, and when you requested it, you made a new copy on your end.
Making copies isn't the same as distributing e
Not sure I agree? (Score:2)
I mean, yes - they're taking a risk here. But I view it as potentially pushing for a re-thinking or revision of old laws, created long before technology allowed digital copies of printed material to exist.
If they're buying/holding a physical copy of each book that they digitally lend out? It seems like a very reasonable interpretation of copyright law, applied to the modern era.
In fact, this reminds me a little bit of the old legal battles businesses had with companies like Microsoft, decades ago. They coul
Re: (Score:2)
But I view it as potentially pushing for a re-thinking or revision of old laws, created long before technology allowed digital copies of printed material to exist.
Nope. The courts won't entertain that for a second. Rethinking copyright policy is the job of Congress, and there not only is no indication that they're interested in legalizing this, but there hasn't even been a real push for it by anyone.
If they're buying/holding a physical copy of each book that they digitally lend out? It seems like a very reasonable interpretation of copyright law, applied to the modern era.
Definitely not. This sort of thing has been tried before (e.g. ReDigi, which wanted to buy and sell "used" mp3 files which had been legally purchased from various online music stores, and was shut down hard by the courts). Just because it seems reasonable to you doesn
Re: (Score:2)
"To what benefit of their goals would they have done this?"
To make sure a digital version is created in the first place and then continues to exist.
A version with DRM which happens to be available now could be in effect disappeared after the fact as a way to work around copyright expiry.
Re: (Score:2)
In addition, and contrary to the summary, at the start of the pandemic they decided to start "lending out" unlimited copies, beyond the number of books they had actually purchased. That is what triggered the lawsuit, and I really don't see how they are going to justify that as being legal. I only hope that stupid stunt doesn't destroy all the good things that archive.org has built up over the years.
Re:Why would they do this? (Score:4, Informative)
Background Information:
https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
https://yro.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]
https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
During lockdown, libraries got shut down. This i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Let's make a deal (Score:2)
A fixed copyright period, like is done with patents would be better.
If it's the original owners death, it would create a financial incentive to have people killed. Maybe 10 or 20 years after death.
Re: (Score:1)
Book summary (Score:1)