Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by EditorDavid on from the war-on-libraries dept.

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."

77 of 119 comments (clear)

  1. Damn right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    It should be illegal to read a book without the author's permission.

  2. Can we please get writer's names by klingens · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re: Can we please get writer's names by guruevi · · Score: 4, Informative

      https://membership.sfwa.org/pa...

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    2. Re:Can we please get writer's names by thomst · · Score: 2

      klingens demanded:

      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.

      Virtually every major science fiction writer is a member of SFWA, as has been the case since the group was founded in the 1960's and began the Nebula awards. That you don't know that speaks volumes about your knowledge of the field ...

      --
      Check out my novel.
    3. Re:Can we please get writer's names by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      klingens demanded:

      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.

      Virtually every major science fiction writer is a member of SFWA, as has been the case since the group was founded in the 1960's and began the Nebula awards. That you don't know that speaks volumes about your knowledge of the field ...

      I know this may be difficult for to understand since it doesn't fit into a little black-and-white viewpoint ... but one can be a member of an organization and disagree with some of the policies of said organization. Thus, the most useful metric would be: which writers were active participants in this effort? Which writers, if any, dissented or protested against this move? That would be valuable criteria to someone who wants to decide for themselves which deserve support.

    4. Re:Can we please get writer's names by MightyMartian · · Score: 1, Troll

      It's tough there aren't more Heroic Aryan Ubermensch In Space novels for you alt right types to masturbate to.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:Can we please get writer's names by gnick · · Score: 2

      See your point.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    6. Re:Can we please get writer's names by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Thus, the most useful metric would be: which writers were active participants in this effort? "

      Given the pittances that writers get from publishers, I wonder if writers are behind this at all. Follow the money.
      It just so happens that most of my writing is in the Public Domain, many thousands of pages, and I'm OK with that. Yes, you have to contact the LOC to read any of it, except for the Preprints, that you can get from the University, for Copying fees for Print, or just download for free. But I never intended to make any money from my writing. Yes, the work itself was more important. (Note that it may at times read like technobabble "Sci-Fi", except that it's the real thing. Dad's writings on Admiralty Law are a model of clarity.)
      My Sister is a working writer. Her most popular book on Networking sold over 100K copies. Her share of the Royalties was about $65K. Most writers would be tickled with getting $65K for just one book... that retailed for $19.95. Work the math. (Her main living is working for the EU. Oh well..)

      How many of the SFWA involved actually Register and own their own Copyrights, free and clear? How many of them, (Like probably all...), had to assign Rights to the Publisher in order to get Published? How many of those are not allowed to separately License their work outside of the printed publishing world?
      Current Copyright law is not written by writers, musicians, photographers, and artists. It is written by Lawyers for the benefit of "Rights Holders", not "Rights Creators".

      Now the book I'm currently working on is jammed chock full of "Fair Use" concerning 21st Century Imaging. Since I intend to put it in the Public Domain after registering Copyright, (USCO, $85.), I have no intention of profiting on it; I'm giving back. My concerns are the recent decisions concerning Getty Images, (See Highsmith v. Getty. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-getty-images-carol-highsmith-20160907-snap-story.html).
      Getty Images was founded by a Family famous for its Museums, and for its trade in Stolen Art. They are already richer beyond comprehension, and they are very powerful. Their view is that once something is put into Public Domain, (Even if it isn't.), they are entitled to make profit on it, and nobody else, not even the original Photographers, have standing here. It's a... curious... concept of Public Domain. The original concept embedded in the US Constitution mentioned nothing about "Rights Holders". In fact, it's quite specific: “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.”
      In fact, it's a pretty strong argument against thieves like Getty: Limited Times, Authors, Inventors, Exclusive Right. No mentions of Agencies or Publishers, and it is very much against Perpetual Copyright.
      Yes, I realize that writers and photographers have little choice here, if they wish to profit on their work. Even less choice if they choose not to. The Industries are bent; crooked to the core. They even have schemes afoot to bypass the USCO completely, by setting up Private Copyright Registries with Private Enforcement, Goombah style. (See the recent ludicrous "Kodakcoin" scam.)

      Yes, I realize that I'm pissing in the wind. But I have always written for pleasure or interest, not profit. And very very few writers make a living solely through their writing; that's what Day Jobs are for. And fewer still realize Royalties from beyond the grave.
      That's what Rights Holders are for.

    7. Re:Can we please get writer's names by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      I can understand why they are whiny. I have hundreds of sci fi books but I have not bought any in decades. I do all my reading for free on the internet. Which might sound like I am backing their argument but the reality is, I read no sci fi books on the internet. I read everything else, there are billions upon billions of pages, there are hours of interaction well beyond a whole life times worth on the internet. The only time I touch a sci fi book now, is when I know I will be stuck for sometime in real life and reading for me is the best escape. I have not bought a book in well over a decade, sorry but the dead tree stuff doesn't do it for me any more compared to the internet. I don't need that escape when I can interact with the internet. People like me a buying a whole lot less books and I already have a collection that will last me well beyond any occasional need that I have. Right now, when I need a break form the internet, I don't read a book, I go for a walk. I have not read a book in over two years, not because I hate reading, I really enjoy it but the internet makes for a much better reader than a book, and I have simply not been trapped anywhere, where I need to fill time by reading a book.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    8. Re: Can we please get writer's names by tonique · · Score: 2

      There's one Brian Aldiss at the 18th place from the beginning, and he should be quite well known to scifi fans. He died last year, though, so he isn't demaning anything any more (his publisher might).

    9. Re:Can we please get writer's names by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      There's plenty, but like mose sub genres they don't tend to win awards in the more mainstream groups.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    10. Re:Can we please get writer's names by Megol · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

    11. Re: Can we please get writer's names by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Also, an Englishman.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    12. Re: Can we please get writer's names by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      It just so happens that most of my writing is in the Public Domain, many thousands of pages, and I'm OK with that.

      Of course; you still capitalize on it.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    13. Re:Can we please get writer's names by elgatozorbas · · Score: 1

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

      Apparently not.

    14. Re:Can we please get writer's names by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

      Virtually every writer, you say ? I find plenty of major SF writers, with multiple NY Times Bestsellers, who aren't members.

      So I did an experiment. I looked at the first 500 names in the SFWA directory. Now, I've been reading SF for 40+ years, and have been to a couple of Worldcons.

      I recognized, at least by name, 24 of those 500 names (and several, I've just heard the name. . .). I've read at least 17 of them. I conclude, that SFWA membership is not an indicator of being a "major science fiction writer". . . .

    15. Re:Can we please get writer's names by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      Clearly this is because SJW types are blocking Heroic Aryan Ubermensch In Space novels. We all know that if these novels were given their rightful place, that people would be lining up down the street to find out what the hyper-masculine blue-eyed blond haired space hero was up to; like grabbing pussies, beating on brown skinned people, keeping the master race safe from suspicious foreign bodily fluids.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    16. Re:Can we please get writer's names by thomst · · Score: 1

      Salgak1 scoffed:

      Virtually every writer, you say ? I find plenty of major SF writers, with multiple NY Times Bestsellers, who aren't members.

      So I did an experiment. I looked at the first 500 names in the SFWA directory. Now, I've been reading SF for 40+ years, and have been to a couple of Worldcons.

      I recognized, at least by name, 24 of those 500 names (and several, I've just heard the name. . .). I've read at least 17 of them. I conclude, that SFWA membership is not an indicator of being a "major science fiction writer". . . .

      I never said it was. What I said was "virtually every major science fiction writer is a member of SFWA," which is quite a different thing.

      Yes, the membership roster includes many, many minor SF writers, as well as most of the major ones. The same is true of, for instance, the Writer's Guild and, in fact, any professional craft guild or association you care to name. As an example, I used to be a member of the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences (the folks who give out the Emmys). I can virtually guarantee you've never heard of me in that context, because I was a professional video editor, and I think it's extremely likely that you couldn't name even one of us under imminent threat of having your kneecaps blown off.

      It's a simple illustration of set theory: that all members of a specified set are members of a different set in no way either insures or, indeed, implies that all members of the second set are also members of the first.

      All Ainu are Japanese - but very fucking few Japanese are Ainu ...

      --
      Check out my novel.
    17. Re:Can we please get writer's names by omnichad · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/

    18. Re:Can we please get writer's names by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Clearly this is because SJW types are blocking Heroic Aryan Ubermensch In Space novels.

      And we would have gotten the Hugo too if it wasn't for you darn SJWs (and general public who also hated the book).

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    19. Re:Can we please get writer's names by CommanderRyalis · · Score: 1

      Might I suggest the works of L. Ron Hubbard... on second thought, please don't.

    20. Re: Can we please get writer's names by 4im · · Score: 1

      What, you never heard of Stephen Baxter, Greg Bear, Ben Bova, David Brin, Cory Doctorov? All these are in those first 500 names. You seriously need to update your reading list.

  3. Talk About Irony! by tgeek · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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."

    1. Re:Talk About Irony! by jaa101 · · Score: 2

      Heinlein is talking about copying the ideas, not the text. Ideas aren't subject to copyright, only the words used to record them.

    2. Re:Talk About Irony! by AJWM · · Score: 1

      Exactly. That's what he meant by "filing off the serial numbers". The characters, locations, actions and dialog are the serial numbers.

      (He was also generally referring to works that would have been out of copyright, e.g. the classics.)

      --
      -- Alastair
  4. Fair use doesn't work like TFA thinks... by Entrope · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Fair use doesn't work like TFA thinks... by TheReaperD · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't know about how many people here agree with me but, going after an organization whose only purpose is to preserve knowledge for future generations for free really rubs me the wrong way, regardless of the legalities; especially 10 years after the fact.

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
    2. Re:Fair use doesn't work like TFA thinks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

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

      That's because the Internet Archive doesn't need them.

      For one, section 108 "h" of the copyright act gives libraries the power to scan and make available copies of books.
      The Internet Archive is a legally registered and recognized US library based out of California.

      For two, regarding any possible stripped DRM, the Internet Archive is explicitly listed *by name* in the DMCA laws as being exempted.

      This was added to the DMCA laws back in 2003, and while this is up for review every 3 years, I haven't heard anything about that exemption being removed the last time it came up for a vote in 2015.
      There will be another round of DMCA exception reviews coming up later this year, so if it is going to change it will still be a number of months in the future before that happens. But as of right now it is specifically legal for the Internet Archive to be doing this.

    3. Re: Fair use doesn't work like TFA thinks... by Monster_user · · Score: 2

      Not entirely. We must first establish what is knowedge to be protected, and haggle over the rest.

      This is part of the haggling process. This IS the discussion. There are merits and complications and things to consider for both sides of the argument.

      Moreover, does protecting previously written works allow for the creation of new works? The copyright extensions issue is of a similar nature as this. It is one thing for an item to enter the public domain, but do we have a right to preserve and maintain accessibility of something until such a time as it enters the public domain?

    4. Re: Fair use doesn't work like TFA thinks... by Monster_user · · Score: 2

      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.

      A library's purpose is to make available those works to the general public, to enrich and advance our society. However, Libraries have been geographically limited, which limited the impact of profit on content creators, and likely serves more to increase the reach and audience of a particular author.

      By making the works available to to broader geographic range, essentially everybody, thr Internet Archive potentially works against the spirit and agenda of copyright law.

    5. Re: Fair use doesn't work like TFA thinks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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

    6. Re: Fair use doesn't work like TFA thinks... by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      I check out e-books from my library at the county seat and have them sent directly to my kindle email address and thus my devices. I can check out e-books from ANY of my county library branches the same way. I did look to see if an item was "off the digital shelves" when checked out and that is in fact true...
      but now that I think about it, there is a copy left on the device after the DRM renders it unusable...
      So in the end how does that vary from the Internet Archive complaint?

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    7. Re:Fair use doesn't work like TFA thinks... by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      That's all true, but I know folks who used this search capability to automatically restore the contents by applying searches inductively: search for A, Google Books displays A and B, search for B, Google Books displays A, B and C, etc.

      The fundamental problem is the digital nature of the modern data and zero-loss copying of that data.

      This problem can only be reserved by subscription-based access to all data: one flat subscription fee to all the data on Internet paid by leaf customers with content-providers sharing the total fee collected with content-owners proportionally to the number of views in a zero sum game. I can't simultaneously watch Alien and Terminator 2. I watch either one or another at this moment, that means that either XX Century Fox gets the portion of the fee or TriStar Pictures.

      The model worked for broadcast television. Advent of additional fees for additional cable packs was one of the factors that drove people to cut the cords (there are plenty of other major factors of course).

      If all I do is watch Mickey Mouse cartoons, all my $100 dollars per month (or, say, 50% of it - let's say Comcast gets 50% and the content owners get 50%) will go to Disney. The amount of time I can spend watching TV episodes or reading book is not limited by money nowadays, it's solely limited by my time. I have very little time watching 100% videos (I "listen" to them while doing something else) and especially reading books which require 100% attention. That means that it is fair that I spend a fixed fee per month per all entertainment I get. Fixed amount for entertainment (HBO or Random House), fixed amount for professional services (NEJM or Phys Rev Letters)

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    8. Re:Fair use doesn't work like TFA thinks... by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Legally there is no "rubbing wrong way" concept.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    9. Re:Fair use doesn't work like TFA thinks... by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      >For one, section 108 "h" of the copyright act gives libraries the power to scan and make available copies of books.
      > The Internet Archive is a legally registered and recognized US library based out of California.

      This is clearly a result of a deep misunderstanding of the nature of data stored in a brick-and-mortar library and digital library that resulted in this legal equivalency.

      The hardcopy data is not a data-loss copy (copy of the book has lower quality compared to the book) and the copying is not unlimited, while digital copy is flawless and unlimitedly replicable .

      Computer literacy should be an obligatory exam for anyone who votes or being voted for.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    10. Re:Fair use doesn't work like TFA thinks... by Entrope · · Score: 1

      Perhaps that organization should focus more on its "only purpose", then, and stop providing copies of currently copyrighted works to the current generation. Also, if the Internet Archive is still doing this, now is not 10 years after the fact -- it is 10 years into ongoing actions.

    11. Re:Fair use doesn't work like TFA thinks... by Entrope · · Score: 1

      (h)(1) For purposes of this section, during the last 20 years of any term of copyright of a published work, a library or archives, including a nonprofit educational institution that functions as such, may reproduce, distribute, display, or perform in facsimile or digital form a copy or phonorecord of such work, or portions thereof, for purposes of preservation, scholarship, or research, if such library or archives has first determined, on the basis of a reasonable investigation, that none of the conditions set forth in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (2) apply.

      So, uh, which of these works are in the last 20 years of copyright? How does the Internet Archive ensure that copies it makes for third parties are for the purpose of scholarship or research? How do they certify that none of those conditions apply? (2(A) is essentially that the work is still being sold new, 2(B) is that copies are available at reasonable prices, and 2(C) is that a copyright owner or their agent can "provide[] notice" that 2(A) or 2(B) applies.)

      The comment about stripped DRM is not that the Internet Archive is violating the DMCA, but that they are providing copies where the protections against indefinite use and further copying are provided only by DRM, and that DRM could be broken.

    12. Re:Fair use doesn't work like TFA thinks... by Entrope · · Score: 1

      I don't know what protections Google has against the kind of abuse you describe, but it is reasonably clear that the end user is working to infringe the copyright in that kind of case, just like a library is not liable for people who use the library's photocopiers to duplicate books or currency.

      Good luck convincing everybody involved that your idea of "fair" payment really is, or even that the benefits of requiring a subscription before accessing any data come anywhere close to outweighing the huge drawbacks of requiring that.

    13. Re:Fair use doesn't work like TFA thinks... by Crispy+Critters · · Score: 1

      Amazing how easy it is to throw in 'section 108 "h" of the copyright act gives libraries the power' and appear to be an authority. A quick google search (for an SF author's name and openlibrary) shows that they are lending books written in the 2000s that are very popular, still in print, and have authorized electronic versions, so none of the criteria are satisfied.

  5. This is what ALL libraries do by Bruce66423 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Every time I go into my local library and borrow a book for free, I'm depriving the author of a royalty payment. What this does is make these books more accessible, but many other real world libraries are moving to this model of borrowing as well.

    1. Re:This is what ALL libraries do by west · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:This is what ALL libraries do by tepples · · Score: 1

      my wife receives an annual payment from the government to compensate her for the possible loss of royalties that libraries might bring

      In what country? I wasn't aware of such payments in the United States.

    3. Re:This is what ALL libraries do by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Di the Internet Archive buy a copy of the book originally? Maybe, maybe not. Imagine there was just one universal library, and they only had to buy a single copy of a book and then could loan it to the entire world simultaneously for free. At which point the universal library buys a book for $10, the author gets a single payment of say $0.75 for royalties. After that no copies of the book will sell because everyone can just borrow it for free.

      The way a real library works is that only one copy is loaned at a time. If the book is popular the library has to buy more of them so that there can be more simultaneous loans.

      Just because an idea is on the internet and it's digitial doesn't make it a good idea.

    4. Re:This is what ALL libraries do by Zumbs · · Score: 1

      It works like that in Denmark.

      --
      The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
    5. Re:This is what ALL libraries do by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Paying taxes is a social contract. If you don't agree to the terms of the contract, please leave society.

    6. Re:This is what ALL libraries do by omnichad · · Score: 1

      A library license (paid to the publisher/author typically by the government in recognition of the public good a library does) is a payment that's considerably higher than one single copy would be.

      Citation needed.

      In the US, library books work like movie rentals. The First Sale Doctrine applies. No royalties are required to pass around an item of property - even a copyrighted one. So long as no copies are made and there is only one person in possession of the item at a time.

      There are library-specific editions made available for books, but they really just have more durable binding. Libraries are not required to buy these books in order to be eligible to loan them out.

    7. Re:This is what ALL libraries do by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Libraries are a big target for publishers. Authors love to have their books bought by libraries.

      --
      Cheap storage VM.
    8. Re:This is what ALL libraries do by west · · Score: 1

      Canada, but I believe there's a similar program in the US.

      It won't make you rich (at least here you max out at a few thousand), but it's a nice bump, especially for a mid-list author.

  6. The Internet Archive needs to decentralize by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    This way nobody can take them down. The internet is worthless if anybody can decide what can or cannot be posted.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:The Internet Archive needs to decentralize by moronoxyd · · Score: 1

      The Internet Archive is building or has build a backup in Canada.

    2. Re:The Internet Archive needs to decentralize by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Canada is no help. They'll take stuff down at the drop of a hat also. I'm thinking it needs to be done in a 'bittorrent' type fashion, with thousands of backups. If we can't make censorship impossible, let's at least make it impractical.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  7. It's just a Library service by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My own local library does something similar. There is and should be nothing wrong with offering books for loan regardless of format at long as the copy is legitimately purchased. Publishers have hated Libraries since they started and they want to use "electronic" as an attempt to license the book instead of buying it.

    The courts will shoot this down, there is a long legal history for Library's loaning books being perfectly legal all the way back into english common law, to rules in the writers favor this the supreme court would need to undo 200 years of precedent. They generally don't do that for anything but the most extreme of situations.

    Libraries exist, they loan books, whether they are digital or paper and it's all perfectly legal.

    1. Re: It's just a Library service by Monster_user · · Score: 1

      Physical books carry an inherent license within the book itself, and are accounted for as they were printed. Due to the nature of the physical copy, the quantities are also limited. Digital copies are less accounted for, and are much more easily obtained. There need only be one digital copy legally obtained to saturate the market with unlicensed copies, in unlimited quantities, destroying the market for the work itself.

    2. Re:It's just a Library service by daver!west!fmc · · Score: 1

      Circulating libraries buy e-books from publishers, and at least some e-book licenses for libraries only permit a certain number of loans per digital e-book purchased. The justification for this is that paper books being loaned out accrue wear and tear and will be removed from circulation when they get too shabby.

    3. Re: It's just a Library service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "DRM is needed to protect our copyrights from thieves!"
      "DRM is so easily cracked its too damaging to our industry to consider it real protection!"

      Seems like they want it both ways depending on the use. Physical copies can be scanned and distributed much easier than cracking DRM, for the lay person. Physical copies can be stolen from libraries and stores as easily as finding the same books online in a format immediately usable by a given reader. Sure you can use Calibre and other software to format-shift, but o course they aren't perfect either so you get weird page breaks, paragraph splits, and even encoding errors throughout the books until you learn to use the software properly... and most don't bother.

      But really, the issue here is availability. They want to argue it makes the market less profitable. And rather than working with various library associations to make this whole thing work by creating guidelines on things like number of copies of a specific book available to a geographic area at any given time, restrictions on when books become available after publication date, etc, they want to try and destroy libraries instead of updating their industry to take advantage of things. You'll pay as much or more for a digital version of a novel, even though the costs involved have dropped significantly. Rather than shift to making money on volume, expanding readership and helping to increase literacy levels by making interesting and popular content widely available to anyone with an internet connection, they want premium income based on false scarcity. That doesn't fly anymore and the more they struggle and resist, the more leverage they'll give to the Apples, Amazons and Walmarts to control their supply in the end.

    4. Re:It's just a Library service by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      >Libraries exist, they loan books, whether they are digital or paper and it's all perfectly legal.

      You are making a mistake that every single +5 or +4 comment made in this discussion: not realizing the fundamental differences between analog content (hardcopies and photocopies of books) and digital content (mobi, pdf or txt): the latter can be copied without any loss unlimited amount of time, the library that "lends" the latter can lend unlimited number of copies.

      For a brief moment 5 years ago I became a member of the local county library. It had a nice Web interface to request a book. I requested several volumes (not at once) from GoT series and waited for months for each of them until my turn came and the book was sent to me by mail (or I picked it up, do not remember). That's because they literally had a limited number of copies allowed for them to have.

      Had it been a digital library, nothing would have prevented me from downloading it at once except for formality of having programmatically coding "tokens" (at ADDITIONAL cost to a digital library - "normal" way of distributing content is without any token system).

      Do you see the difference?

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    5. Re:It's just a Library service by zeugma-amp · · Score: 1

      Had it been a digital library, nothing would have prevented me from downloading it at once except for formality of having programmatically coding "tokens" (at ADDITIONAL cost to a digital library - "normal" way of distributing content is without any token system).

      Maybe, maybe not. The library could very well institute a policy that allows them to only lend out however many copies of the book that they've purchased. It would be easy enough to do using 'tokens' as you indicated, or merely releasing the copy to readers after it has been checked in, or the loan time expires whichever comes first.

      This isn't rocket science. We understand fairly well how libraries work.

      I'd be interested in what some of the SF publishing companies are saying about this lawsuit, if anything. Baen and Tor both publish DRM-free ebooks in multiple formats. Baen comes right out and says on their website that the reason they publish their books sans DRM is because they do not believe their customers are thieves. IMO, there is something to be said for treating your customers like decent human beings. They also have the 'free library' where they make the first book or two in a bunch of their series' available for free download by anyone who wants to read them. Like any good drug dealer, they understand the concept of "the first one is free".

      --
      This is an ex-parrot!
    6. Re:It's just a Library service by MemeRot · · Score: 1

      Every library I've borrowed ebooks from does just this. There is a waiting line for new releases on e-books just like there is for physical books, to make the publishers happy

    7. Re: It's just a Library service by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Seems like they want it both ways depending on the use.

      Seems like if they're going to take the risk, they want the reward too. I see no conflict there.

    8. Re:It's just a Library service by omnichad · · Score: 1

      And unlike a physical book that has the first sale doctrine behind its loaning, publishers can encumber a digital license all they want.

    9. Re: It's just a Library service by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      The courts didn't see it the way you claim. Books are product, they aren't "licensed". You're sold a copy of a licensed work, you are free do what you want with that licensed work including resell it or anything else. You are clearly not aware of the history of the library. Publishers sued the first libraries and loaning groups after putting "license" agreements in the books, the courts shot it down, it was later added into law that the book once sold the copyright on that book was exhausted and the author had no more legal claim to it. The owner could resell or do anything to the book they want including loaning it to other people.

      This is long settled, I suggest you look into the history of libraries and all the early legal challenges and shennangins that the publishers at the time attempted and the legal ramifications that resulted. To undo this the supreme court would need to undo 200+ year old precedents and invalidate laws just as old. It's not happening, books aren't licensed.

    10. Re:It's just a Library service by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      I understand the difference, what you don't understand the law.

      There is no limit on the number of copies of a book a library can purchase other than their own limited funds. The reason your local library only had so many copies of the book was a limit of their funding, not a legal limit. My library controls access to the digital publications through a rudimentary DRM system but I see no legal reason for them to do so. Books have special legal rules regarding copyright exhaustion after sale, these laws are very very old going right back to the first printing presses and publishers attempts to restrict resale.

      The supreme court is not going to side with the writers, this is just another attempt to use "digital" as a reason to try to undo these hundreds of years old laws that the publishing world didn't like when they were passed.

      I'd also like to add that you understanding of how Libraries work is absolutely wrong on almost all counts, again I suggest you spend some time and learn the history of libraries, particularly the legal trials that resulted and the laws that were passed as a result. You can find adequate summaries on Wikipedia.

  8. Re: Interesting by Monster_user · · Score: 1

    Not sure how the book archives work, but the "Wayback Machine" is a more common name for its primary resource. Have a URL to an abandoned or closed website that you needed something off of, but didn't get before the site went down? Do a search for a backup of the site in the archive.

  9. Re: Recent change by Monster_user · · Score: 1

    The copy the internet archive licensed is likely not licensed to be reproduced. Thus this is a copyright violation.

    There is a huge difference between accessing a digital copied stored locally on a library's computer, or computer network, and accessing that copy remotely from any machine in the world.

    The Internet Archive is in violation of copyright.

  10. The program didn't launch in 2007 by ET3D · · Score: 1

    It wasn't until 2010 that the Open Library started lending copyrighted books, and then only to people with library cards from specific libraries. I have no idea when this was opened to the public at large, with no need to be a member of a library.

    Discussion of the legality of this have been around from 2010, and it indeed seems to me a thorny legal issue. One would hope that at some point this will reach court and an actual decision is made or the right to lend works. If that's indeed a right, it could transform the digital goods market, which so far is locked to a 'purchase only for yourself' paradigm.

    1. Re:The program didn't launch in 2007 by omnichad · · Score: 1

      The only legal standing for loaning books is the first sale doctrine, except in cases where alternate licensing agreements are made with a publisher. Combine that with fair-use rights to format shifting under copyright law (scanning the book and making an eBook edition). That means you could loan out a single copy of an ebook for every physical copy owned, provided that the physical copy isn't being loaned out at the same time. Something tells me they're not doing this.

  11. Time passed is irrelevant by gordguide · · Score: 1

    " ... 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." ..."

    I have no idea which "critical legal issues" might exist. Copyright is inalienable ... a copyright owner has no obligation to act when made aware of infringement, and the right does not change simply because infringement was not acted upon.

  12. There's a scheme for this in the UK by Bruce66423 · · Score: 1

    YMMV!

  13. Open Library only lends a few by Bruce66423 · · Score: 1

    A visit to the site reveals that only some books are borrowable: others you have to get in line for, implying they restrict borrowing. The parallel with a library is thus precise.

  14. "Cat Rambo" by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1, Funny

    Is it bad that I immediately thought of this?

    Ms Rambo is probably sick of that joke...

  15. The library can do it by aisanled · · Score: 1

    In my opintion,The library can do it

  16. 86 comments and not one mention of Barbara? by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

    I was not aware the Internet Archive had opened up their lending program. I mostly just use the Wayback Machine. Thank you SFWA. (And Ms. Streisand.)

  17. Re:Recent change by west · · Score: 1

    > I imagine that local libraries that have gone down this route buy ONE e-copy which they make available to their borrowers.

    Rather more importantly, the libraries only loan one copy of the e-book out at a time, mimicking the constraints of physical copy books. They do, in fact, buy multiple copies of e-books if they feel there are going to be multiple users requesting copies simultaneously.

    Libraries are indeed a balance between the needs of society (which benefits from the availability) and the individuals who produce the material that society needs. Like taxes, most authors are happy to to lose some of their potential revenue to benefit society at large. However, as might be expected, most bridle at total expropriation of their earnings done at the behest not of society as a whole, but individuals who choose to break the previous existing social and legal contract.

  18. Open library limits its lending by Bruce66423 · · Score: 1

    As a visit will reveal. So there's no fundamental difference except that I'm using an internet library, not a local government e-library?

    1. Re:Open library limits its lending by west · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty certain that if the Internet Archive had a mechanism so that an e-book could only be "checked-out" by 1 user at a time, there'd be no issue here because instead of losing (potentially) thousands of sales, you're losing maybe a dozen.

      So in impact, a very big difference. And impact is what matters, not "are these mechanisms topologically identical".

      I'm assuming that your morality is not "if I twist a mechanism to get away with it, then it must be ethical" strain.

  19. Re:Recent change by Crispy+Critters · · Score: 1
    > I imagine that local libraries that have gone down this route buy ONE e-copy which they make available to their borrowers.

    No, they buy a license that allows lending electronic copies.

    https://www.boston.com/news/te...

    The pricing structure and attached permissions are completely different.

  20. Go visit the site! by Bruce66423 · · Score: 1

    You can't check out many books - they offer to put you on a waiting list.

    The OP complains that the process leaves a blocked copy of the book on the device of people who've returned it. That's a different issue.