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."

20 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 gnick · · Score: 2

      See your point.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    4. 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
    5. 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).

    6. 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.

    7. 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.
  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.

  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

  5. 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!”
  6. 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.

  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.