'Science Fiction Writers of America' Accuse Internet Archive of Piracy (sfwa.org) 119
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."
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."
Damn right (Score:2, Funny)
It should be illegal to read a book without the author's permission.
Re: ya (Score:1)
Stop replying to obvious trolls dude
Can we please get writer's names (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?
Re: (Score:1)
See you may be
I ignore anyone who begins a sentence with "see". It's your first word. You haven't communicated anything yet, so how can I "see" what you're trying to say? Or did you intend the word in the imperative sense, like "I ORDER YOU to listen to me!"?
Re: (Score:3)
See your point.
Re:Can we please get writer's names (Score:4, Interesting)
Good for you. I ignore anyone that complains over things like this.
Re: (Score:2)
Good for you. I ignore anyone that complains over things like this.
Apparently not.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
It's tough there aren't more Heroic Aryan Ubermensch In Space novels for you alt right types to masturbate to.
Re: (Score:2)
There's plenty, but like mose sub genres they don't tend to win awards in the more mainstream groups.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Can we please get writer's names (Score:5, Informative)
https://membership.sfwa.org/pa... [sfwa.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Can we please get writer's names (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 ...
Re: (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.
Re: (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 int
Re: Can we please get writer's names (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 lif
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/ [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:1)
Can we get your employer's name? I'm sure s/he will be delighted to hear of your principled stance against people working for money.
Talk About Irony! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Heinlein is talking about copying the ideas, not the text. Ideas aren't subject to copyright, only the words used to record them.
Re: (Score:2)
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.)
Fair use doesn't work like TFA thinks... (Score:5, 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.
Re:Fair use doesn't work like TFA thinks... (Score:5, 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.
Re: Fair use doesn't work like TFA thinks... (Score:3)
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 acces
Re: (Score:2)
Legally there is no "rubbing wrong way" concept.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Fair use doesn't work like TFA thinks... (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.
Re: Fair use doesn't work like TFA thinks... (Score:3)
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
Re: (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.
T
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
>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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 s
Re: (Score:2)
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 drawback
This is what ALL libraries do (Score:2, 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.
Re:This is what ALL libraries do (Score:5, 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.
Recent change (Score:1)
Historically libraries didn't make royalty payments. Yes, one book was purchased, and I imagine that local libraries that have gone down this route buy ONE e-copy which they make available to their borrowers. So the fight is over ONE copy owned by the Internet Archive or not. If the book has to be disassembled to be scanned in successfully then that's one book that is no longer alive, being replaced by one electronic copy.
I stand by the claim this is merely a quantitative difference; YMMV
Re: Recent change (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
> 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 individu
Open library limits its lending (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Go visit the site! (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they buy a license that allows lending electronic copies.
https://www.boston.com/news/te... [boston.com]
The pricing structure and attached permissions are completely different.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
There's a scheme for this in the UK (Score:2)
YMMV!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Paying taxes is a social contract. If you don't agree to the terms of the contract, please leave society.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Open Library only lends a few (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 [wikipedia.org] 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.
Re: Interesting (Score:2)
The Internet Archive needs to decentralize (Score:2)
This way nobody can take them down. The internet is worthless if anybody can decide what can or cannot be posted.
Re: (Score:2)
The Internet Archive is building or has build a backup in Canada.
Re: (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.
It's just a Library service (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.
Re: It's just a Library service (Score:2)
Re: (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, bu
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And unlike a physical book that has the first sale doctrine behind its loaning, publishers can encumber a digital license all they want.
Re: (Score:2)
>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 m
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 v
The program didn't launch in 2007 (Score:2)
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 tran
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Time passed is irrelevant (Score:2)
" ... 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.
"Cat Rambo" (Score:2, Funny)
Is it bad that I immediately thought of this? [memegenerator.net]
Ms Rambo is probably sick of that joke...
The library can do it (Score:1)
86 comments and not one mention of Barbara? (Score:2)
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.)