Neil Gaiman, Cory Doctorow And Other Authors Publish Open Letter Protesting Publishers' Lawsuit Against Internet Archive Library (deadline.com) 29
A group of authors, including Neil Gaiman, Naomi Klein, and Cory Doctorow, "are lending their names to an open letter protesting publishers' lawsuit against the Internet Archive Library, characterizing it as one of a number of efforts to curb libraries' lending of ebooks." From the report: A group of publishers sued the Internet Archive in 2020, claiming that its open library violates copyright by producing "mirror image copies of millions of unaltered in-copyright works for which it has no rights" and then distributes them "in their entirety for reading purposes to the public for free, including voluminous numbers of books that are commercially available." They also contend that the archive's scanning undercuts the market for e-books. The Internet Archive says that its lending of the scanned books is akin to a traditional library. In its response to the publishers' lawsuit, it warns of the ramifications of the litigation and claims that publishers "would like to force libraries and their patrons into a world in which books can only be accessed, never owned, and in which availability is subject to the rightsholders' whim."
"Libraries are a fundamental collective good. We, the undersigned authors, are disheartened by the recent attacks against libraries being made in our name by trade associations such as the American Association of Publishers and the Publishers Association: undermining the traditional rights of libraries to own and preserve books, intimidating libraries with lawsuits, and smearing librarians," the letter states. The letter also calls for enshrining "the right of libraries to permanently own and preserve books, and to purchase these permanent copies on reasonable terms, regardless of format," and condemns the characterization of library advocates as "mouthpieces" for big tech. "We fear a future where libraries are reduced to a sort of Netflix or Spotify for books, from which publishers demand exorbitant licensing fees in perpetuity while unaccountable vendors force the spread of disinformation and hate for profit," the letter states.
The American Association of Publishers' general counsel Terrence Hart issued a statement responding to the claim that the lawsuit is an attack on libraries. He said, "That authors and publishers support libraries is not in dispute and most certainly not at issue in the infringement case against the Internet Archive, which is not a library. "On the contrary, the Internet Archive operates an unlicensed digital copying and distribution business that copies millions of literary works without permission and gives them away for free. This activity is unprecedented and outside any reasonable interpretation of the copyright law that grants to authors the decision as to whether, when, through whom, and on what terms to distribute their works to the public." He added, "If the rights holder chooses to permit the copying of print books into e-books, that is a choice they are empowered to make as to their own works. The Internet Archive robs authors and publishers of that choice."
"Libraries are a fundamental collective good. We, the undersigned authors, are disheartened by the recent attacks against libraries being made in our name by trade associations such as the American Association of Publishers and the Publishers Association: undermining the traditional rights of libraries to own and preserve books, intimidating libraries with lawsuits, and smearing librarians," the letter states. The letter also calls for enshrining "the right of libraries to permanently own and preserve books, and to purchase these permanent copies on reasonable terms, regardless of format," and condemns the characterization of library advocates as "mouthpieces" for big tech. "We fear a future where libraries are reduced to a sort of Netflix or Spotify for books, from which publishers demand exorbitant licensing fees in perpetuity while unaccountable vendors force the spread of disinformation and hate for profit," the letter states.
The American Association of Publishers' general counsel Terrence Hart issued a statement responding to the claim that the lawsuit is an attack on libraries. He said, "That authors and publishers support libraries is not in dispute and most certainly not at issue in the infringement case against the Internet Archive, which is not a library. "On the contrary, the Internet Archive operates an unlicensed digital copying and distribution business that copies millions of literary works without permission and gives them away for free. This activity is unprecedented and outside any reasonable interpretation of the copyright law that grants to authors the decision as to whether, when, through whom, and on what terms to distribute their works to the public." He added, "If the rights holder chooses to permit the copying of print books into e-books, that is a choice they are empowered to make as to their own works. The Internet Archive robs authors and publishers of that choice."
Library exception to copyright (Score:5, Informative)
17 USC 108: Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by libraries and archives
(a)Except as otherwise provided in this title and notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archives, or any of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), or to distribute such copy or phonorecord, under the conditions specified by this section, if—
(1)the reproduction or distribution is made without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage;
(2)the collections of the library or archives are (i) open to the public, or (ii) available not only to researchers affiliated with the library or archives or with the institution of which it is a part, but also to other persons doing research in a specialized field; and
(3)the reproduction or distribution of the work includes a notice of copyright that appears on the copy or phonorecord that is reproduced under the provisions of this section, or includes a legend stating that the work may be protected by copyright if no such notice can be found on the copy or phonorecord that is reproduced under the provisions of this section.
(b)The rights of reproduction and distribution under this section apply to three copies or phonorecords of an unpublished work duplicated solely for purposes of preservation and security or for deposit for research use in another library or archives of the type described by clause (2) of subsection (a), if—
(1)the copy or phonorecord reproduced is currently in the collections of the library or archives; and
(2)any such copy or phonorecord that is reproduced in digital format is not otherwise distributed in that format and is not made available to the public in that format outside the premises of the library or archives.
(c)The right of reproduction under this section applies to three copies or phonorecords of a published work duplicated solely for the purpose of replacement of a copy or phonorecord that is damaged, deteriorating, lost, or stolen, or if the existing format in which the work is stored has become obsolete, if—
(1)the library or archives has, after a reasonable effort, determined that an unused replacement cannot be obtained at a fair price; and
(2)any such copy or phonorecord that is reproduced in digital format is not made available to the public in that format outside the premises of the library or archives in lawful possession of such copy.
For purposes of this subsection, a format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or device necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.
(d)The rights of reproduction and distribution under this section apply to a copy, made from the collection of a library or archives where the user makes his or her request or from that of another library or archives, of no more than one article or other contribution to a copyrighted collection or periodical issue, or to a copy or phonorecord of a small part of any other copyrighted work, if—
(1)the copy or phonorecord becomes the property of the user, and the library or archives has had no notice that the copy or phonorecord would be used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research; and
(2)the library or archives displays prominently, at the place where orders are accepted, and includes on its order form, a warning of copyright in accordance with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation.
(e)The rights of reproduction and distribution under this section apply to the entire work, or to a substantial part of it, made from the collection of a library or archives where the user makes his or her request or from that of another library or archives, if the library or archives has first determined, on the basis of a reasonable investigation
Re: (Score:3)
With libraries, they buy a number of copies of a book then can only lend out those copies. A library cannot lend out an arbitrary number of copies. A library can make one copy each, as you note, not an arbitrary number. If Internet Archive library does not limit the numbers lent, then it's technically violating the rules. Section (g) above is clear on this.
Remember, libraries with physical books are not allowed to photocopy the entirety of the books and lend many of those copies out. "But digital is dif
Re: (Score:2)
With libraries, they buy a number of copies of a book then can only lend out those copies. A library cannot lend out an arbitrary number of copies. A library can make one copy each, as you note, not an arbitrary number. If Internet Archive library does not limit the numbers lent, then it's technically violating the rules. Section (g) above is clear on this.
Remember, libraries with physical books are not allowed to photocopy the entirety of the books and lend many of those copies out. "But digital is different!" is not a valid excuse.
Don't they violate C(2)?
"(2)any such copy or phonorecord that is reproduced in digital format is not made available to the public in that format outside the premises of the library or archives in lawful possession of such copy."
Re: (Score:2)
C only applies to replacing damaged copies in the collection.
(c)The right of reproduction under this section applies to three copies or phonorecords of a published work duplicated solely for the purpose of replacement of a copy or phonorecord that is damaged, deteriorating, lost, or stolen, or if the existing format in which the work is stored has become obsolete
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
They should allow as many COPIES to loan out as the Banks are allowed to loan out more money than they have assets for. So if banks can loan $12 for $1 actual money without going to jail for fraud then libraries should get 12 books for each 1 book they buy.
Re:Library exception to copyright (Score:5, Informative)
They do limit. They only lend the books of which they hold a copy, and only make as many loans as they have copies. They use Adobe DRM, just like all libraries who make digital loans.
Their loans vary in length, some being two weeks but a lot now are one hour with a possible renewal, so they are becoming more like an old fashioned reading library as distinct from a lending library.
Out of copyright books are downloadable, which has no copyright problems.
It looks like anything that would justify closing down their scan and lend service, given the above, would also justify closing down Overdrive. What's the real difference between what a conventional library does in lending an electronic copy, and what they are doing?
To researchers their out of copyright archive is the most valuable service - it allows comparison of editions, for instance, in a way that its hard to see how you would do otherwise without great trouble and expense. Also access to odd minor works by authors which may be out of print or unobtainable.
From a practical point of view we will also be dealing with the law of unintended consequences if their lending operation is closed down. A significant proportion of borrowers are not going to just buy the books they want to read - either in electronic or paper form. Especially not in paper form, because at the moment there's a huge glut of paper books which have been bought to read, but which people do not want cluttering up their houses once read. And there is a financial issue: they want to borrow, they don't want to buy and own.
So if the archive.org free library service is no longer available, people who just want a library service will look for other ways of finding free reading, and at least some of them will turn to pirate sites.
This will be damaging to all of us. We need authors to be compensated, we need copyright to work, piracy is a very bad thing and the more common it gets the more damaging it is. The publishing industry should recognize that archive.org, the way its currently run, is being responsible and keeping within the spirit of copyright law.
They made a misstep during the pandemic, when they lent multiple copies of books of which they only held one example, but have corrected it and tightened up their lending policies. They are actually a firewall protecting us, authors and publishers from the consequences of increasing piracy. Publishers should be supporting them, not attacking them.
Re: (Score:2)
Digital is different. Even my kids understand this and are very confused when they want an ebook from the library and "all copies are in use".
What probably needs to happen with e-books at libraries is to come up with some formula. An average paper book is usually recycled after
about 25 uses and costs about $25. That is $1 for every checkout so that would be a good starting point but half that is printing and shipping
costs which ebooks don't have so $0.50 per checkout seems like a reasonable price where a
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If you note in your quoted verbiage, exclusion A would be in effect-- the publishers had the works for "Sale" at the time. It is arguable about B, given pandemic budgetary constraints. The general public was facing the need for actual govt assistance to meet basic bills, like rent, yet the publishers DID NOT lower prices.
If you ask me, this lawsuit is mostly about B. Internet archive made the works available at "Greater than reserve" quantity, (EG, made copies), during a period of historical financial unce
Re: (Score:2)
If you note in your quoted verbiage, exclusion A would be in effect-- the publishers had the works for "Sale" at the time. It is arguable about B, given pandemic budgetary constraints. The general public was facing the need for actual govt assistance to meet basic bills, like rent, yet the publishers DID NOT lower prices.
If you ask me, this lawsuit is mostly about B. Internet archive made the works available at "Greater than reserve" quantity, (EG, made copies), during a period of historical financial uncertainty-- where the publishers wanted to rake in a windfall off bored people stuck at home.
"But 59.95$ is TOTALLY a reasonable price for an ebook!" is not sensible. It costs less than a penny to distribute even a very large PDF, and as Internet Archive itself demonstrates, it does not cost anywhere near that to format an in-print book for digital distribution.
Granted, the Internet Archive REALLY does need to clean up and police its digital collections..... My god, so much illegal software in there... The matter at hand here, is just publishers being fucking greedy, and being butthurt that IA popped their bubble on getting a windfall from the pandemic.
But they are violating C2
"any such copy or phonorecord that is reproduced in digital format is not made available to the public in that format outside the premises of the library or archives in lawful possession of such copy."
Re: (Score:2)
That's (h)(2)(A), which is a restriction on the application of (h)(1), but is (h) a restriction on (a) or an extension of (a)? Given that it adds a bunch of verbs ("reproduce, distribute, display, or perform" vs just "reproduce"), it looks like an extension.
This is possibly a red herring, given that (h) only applies to works which are in their last 20 years of copyright: AIUI the majority of the works at issue are works of living authors, and copyright extends until more than 20 years after their deaths.
Re: Library exception to copyright (Score:2)
There are similar protections under the Copyright Act in Australia. Patrons are free to scan or copy 10% of a book or one chapter for scholarly, research or leisurely purposes.
Before dead-tree books are consigned to history, we need to ensure a continued free and open access to information. This is critical not just democracy but for innovation, economic development and facing our looming environmental challenges.
The industry and banking types seek to destroy that for the sake of the bottom line. And they
Simultaneous readers (Score:3)
The issue boils down to the number of simultaneous readers for a given book.
If the NYC library buys one copy of a book, it can only lend it out to one person at a time, that's fine, others will balance their desire to read the book now with their interest in not buying a copy of the book.
But if a librarian were to walk over to the copier and make a complete copy of the book do that two people could read the book at the same time, if the book is under copyright protection there's a problem - a law has been broken.
It's no different if a person takes the book, scans it, and makes the scans freely available over the internet. If the item has a copyright protection, a law has been broken.
Because a copyright protected item - a book - can be rendered digitally and shared universally for virtually no cost, doesn't make copyright laws irrelevant.
If an author, like Mr. Doctorow, wishes to make their works freely available to the public (as Mr. Doctorow does), then they shouldn't sell the exclusive publishing rights to a publisher that seeks to mobilize the works for the benefit of the author and the publisher.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Power to COPY they have temporary exclusive rights for the betterment of society by rewarding creators for their work; for a while. The fact it has been extremely abused into insane amounts of money lasting forever (Disney bribes for extensions) is missing main the point.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue boils down to the number of simultaneous readers for a given book.
What issue? The internet archive already operates a waitlist for when you want to borrow books from it -- it already restricts the number of simultaneous readers. You'll have to be more specific about how your comment relates to the Internet Archive.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Your argument was OK until the last sentence... (Score:2)
Quote: "...a publisher that seeks to mobilize the works for the benefit of the author..."
That couldn't be a more false statement... It's obvious you've never published anything with an publishing company.
If that were true, the publishing companies catalogue would be humongous, with hundreds of new titles from each company each day... and that's obviously not the reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Quote: "...[sell the exclusive publishing rights to] a publisher that seeks to mobilize the works for the benefit of the author [and the publisher]..."
That couldn't be a more false statement
I don't know how you're reading that statement, but it is very obviously true.
It is a simple fact that authors grant exclusive rights to publishers who do indeed work to move as many copies as they can for the benefit of both the author and publisher.
If that were true, the publishing companies catalogue would be humongous, with hundreds of new titles from each company each day...
That doesn't make any sense. How on earth did you come to such an absurd conclusion? What possible motivation could publisher have for doing such a thing? How did the parent's simple statement of fact lead you to make such a ridiculous claim?
Re: (Score:2)
My argument is so simple that I don't understand how you don't get it:
Do you know how many "rejected" authors there are? That's because the publishers are ONLY interested in what they think can make the gain MONEY, as they do NOT have any interested but keeping the lowest possible to pay to authors.
And I tell this as a (unknown) writer and friend of (famous) writers.
Re: (Score:2)
What about the parents post leads you to believe that he thinks publishers enter into an agreement with every author that comes along?
He makes no such claim, not even in your deceptively selected quote, nor is anything remotely like that implied by any other statement made in his post.
You came up with that absurdity all by yourself.
Re: Your argument was OK until the last sentence.. (Score:2)
Typo - it was supposed to read "monitize" not mobilize, publishers look to profit off books.
Re: (Score:2)
The Internet Archive uses a system where they have one physical copy of the book for every one digital loan they make. The number of copies lent out always matches the number of physical copies of the book, and they use DRM to limit lending to 2 weeks.
The issue in general (Score:3)
Complete misrepresentation (Score:4, Insightful)
"On the contrary, the Internet Archive operates an unlicensed digital copying and distribution business that copies millions of literary works without permission and gives them away for free.."
This is exactly NOT what they are doing. They have never done that.
They are buying or acquiring a physical copy. They are then lending one electronic scanned copy of it for a limited period, protected by Adobe DRM. It seems mostly now to be for an hour, with an ability to renew for an hour if no-one else is waiting. It used to be, and probably still is in some cases, a two week loan term. Whichever, its a loan, its not a give away, and it expires automatically at the end of the term.
They did, during the pandemic, lend multiple copies of books where they only held one physical copy. This was still a loan, it was never a give away, but it was wrong and silly. They corrected and stopped, and at the same time they introduced the one hour loan limit.
At the moment they are working rather like an old fashioned reading library. The kind of thing you found in all universities 50 years ago. You went in, requested your book, they brought it to you, and you read it at a desk in the premises. And made notes with pen and paper!
I can't see anything objectionable about this. In fact, I think its probably going to have the effect of slightly increasing paper book sales, because there will be some books people borrow or glance through that they then decide they want to own permanently. Its exactly the same function lending libraries have always performed, but in the digital era. Its giving people temporary access to more books than they can afford to buy, or even want to buy.
In a sane world this would be thrown out instantly (Score:4, Insightful)
The publisher's core argument has no merit at all and is incredibly dishonest.
"A group of publishers sued the Internet Archive in 2020, claiming that its open library violates copyright by producing "mirror image copies of millions of unaltered in-copyright works for which it has no rights"
Where did they get the idea a library (or archive, or whatever) has "no rights" when they purchase a book? At the very least they have the right to possess and read that book so that's already 2 rights and copyright law and first-sale doctrine grant even more. That's a pretty sketchy way to start your claims.
"... and then distributes them "in their entirety for reading purposes to the public for free, including voluminous numbers of books that are commercially available."
So what? You just described what a library or archive does. It's also something they are allowed to do under copyright - and yes they can even lend copies provided the number of lent copies matches the number purchased. This is how IA lending works and was operating that way when the lawsuit was filed.
"... 'They also contend that the archive's scanning undercuts the market for e-books."
Again, SO WHAT? It's not the job of a library/archive to support any market. Their job is to lend books and preserve knowledge. It's not a publishers job to tell libraries their job.
"... the Internet Archive, which is not a library"
So, best I can tell the publishers' entire argument is based on the claim that Internet Archive is not a library... which is... well, fucking stupid to be perfectly honest since copyright law clearly states the rights apply to "libraries or archives".