'Science Fiction Writers of America' Accuse Internet Archive of Piracy (sfwa.org)

An anonymous reader writes: The "Open Library" project of the nonprofit Internet Archive has been scanning books and offering "loans" of DRM-protected versions for e-readers (which expire after the loan period expires). This week the Legal Affairs Committe of the Science Fiction Writers of America issued a new "Infringement Alert" on the practice, complaining that "an unreadable copy of the book is saved on users' devices...and can be made readable by stripping DRM protection."

The objection, argues SFWA President Cat Rambo, is that "writers' work is being scanned in and put up for access without notifying them... it is up to the individual writer whether or not their work should be made available in this way." But the infringement alert takes the criticism even further. "We suspect that this is the world's largest ongoing project of unremunerated digital distribution of entire in-copyright books."
The Digital Reader blog points out one great irony. "The program initially launched in 2007. It has been running for ten years, and the SFWA only just now noticed." They add that SFWA's tardiness "leaves critical legal issues unresolved."

"Remember, Google won the Google Books case, and had its scanning activities legalized as fair use ex post facto... [I]n fact the Internet Archive has a stronger case than Google did; the latter had a commercial interest in its scans, while the Internet Archive is a non-profit out to serve the public good."

Comments

Can we please get writer's names

[klingens]

who are behind this SFWA thing? So we can avoid them in the future, cause they obviously suck at thinking about technology, the future and what it means for society.
I could understand if it was org for writers of world war 2 fiction, regency romances or other stuff for old farts doing this, but SF?

Re:Can we please get writer's names

[Megol]

Good for you. I ignore anyone that complains over things like this.

Talk About Irony!

[tgeek]

Or is it hypocrisy? Science fiction writers have long history of "borrowing" others' work. Robert Heinlein even made reference to it in Glory Road: "That's the way with writers; they'll steal anything, file off the serial numbers, and claim it for their own."

Fair use doesn't work like TFA thinks...

[Entrope]

A court sided with Google on the "fair use" question mostly because Google's scanning process (a) was transformative and (b) did not substantially affect the market for the original work. Google provided a way to search within books -- which was not a capability offered before -- and when Google shows the context from the original work, it does not show all the pages of the book. Instead, it cuts chunks out so that readers have a reason to get the book through an authorized channel. The decision did not depend on whether Google is a for-profit or non-profit enterprise, because copyright law does not inquire about that.

In this case, the Internet Archive doesn't have either of those copyright-relevant factors on its side.

The AC who submitted the story also distorts what TFA said "leaves critical legal issues unresolved": It is not the fact that SFWA is raising a hue and cry 10 years after the Internet Archive launched this effort, but rather the fact that much of what the Internet Archive does goes below the radar of content creators in general.

Re: Fair use doesn't work like TFA thinks...

[Anonymous Coward]

Something worth researching. Even if that is the case, we need to discuss the intent and consequences.

The purpose of copyright is to encourage new works. To enhance the public domain, by having content creators benefit from those works for a limited time after their creation.

There may be a sticking point with your definition however.

But first let me just put out there, I do agree discussing the intent and consequences is always a good thing to do, and I certainly do not mean to sound like I am shutting that idea down in any way.
(I've been accused of worse for saying far less)

Back to the topic at hand, there are still a number of people out there who still wish to always start with the constitutional definition and go about giving more specific definitions of things from there.

The United States Congress shall have power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

When you use the term "benefit from", that is just one of multiple possible interpretations of the actual original definition.
Stating it as a fact like that is likely to cause those I mentioned to instantly go into defensive mode, making discussion difficult if not impossible.

When talking about changing our current complicated legal structure regarding copyright, please do keep in mind that both sides of the argument have had to make some huge and major concessions.
This is pretty typical when government is involved, but usually put more simple as "the tragety of the lowest common denominator" problem.

On the other side of the fence is the "limited time" aspect, which is also a heavily interpreted specific form of the actual definition.
I mention this not to change the topic at hand, but simply to show both sides of the argument have had to give up major aspects of the original copyright system that makes it appear, again from both sides, that copyright has failed us.

(Full disclosure, while I too agree with you that copyright could certainly be vastly improved with some minor changes, I suspect both of us are on opposite sides of that fence in how we want it changed)

From my POV I do not at all believe copyright was intended to benefit the copyright holder in any but the most minor ways, I believe it was intended to benefit everyone at the expense of the copyright holder.
After all, in a typical "give and take" argument, when 'everyone' must give up a significant chunk of their rights regarding culture and knowledge, it doesn't sound unreasonable to expect something significant in return for agreeing to.

Having 'everyone' agree to give up their right to knowledge and culture for a limited time seems reasonable if in exchange 'everyone' ends up being allowed to use that work in any way they desire after that limited time.

Having 'everyone' agree to give up those same rights in exchange for even less rights, aka someone else getting rich at the expense of those rights, sounds less like a give-and-take and more like a give-and-give.

This is what forms the basis of the argument that copyright only makes sense if the "loss" resulting from copyright existing is balanced by the "gain" of something, and as it is 'everyone' involved in that initial "loss" in their rights, it must be 'everyone' that has a "gain" to balance it out.

Now on the other hand, yes I agree that having creators benefit from their works, or even more specifically benefit financially from their works, is the main implication in the original definition.
It's pretty much the only form of benefit that makes any sense even.
I'm more than willing to grant that as a given.

But I am less willing to bend to the claim that copyright exists to progress science and the arts specifically by giving incentive for authors to produce more works, instead of by giving 'everyone' the right to use those works themselves.

Yes "lim

Re:This is what ALL libraries do

[west]

To the contrary - my wife receives an annual payment from the government to compensate her for the possible loss of royalties that libraries might bring. Given that libraries also *buy* the book they lend, I've yet to meet an author who wasn't enthusiastically pro-library.

This is like saying that because I don't like the idea of being robbed by you, I should hate the idea of paying taxes. Ludicrous on every level.