National Emergency Library(archive.org) |
National Emergency Library(archive.org) |
These are scans that the Internet Archive already had that they had been making available through libraries on a check-out basis, which apparently is fine under fair use. Their claim now is, because of the national emergency, it's fair use to make these scans directly available to everyone.
Seems like it needs some volunteer contribution to do some curation / tagging / rating to get people to be able to use it successfully...
On the other hand, this crisis is going to require bold action and moving faster than the speed of money and negotiation. I was hoping to see 'screw it, everything is free' from hospitals or someone knocking off ventilator designs but hey, this is a start.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/fpsqm0/the_internet_...
[2]https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-national-eme...
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/03/internet-archive...
Anyone else interested in this ReDigi case (I was) can check out the following pages:
https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/digital/copyrig...
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/16...
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/business/media/redigi-los...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_LLC_v._ReDi....
More recent news:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181217/17092841253/appea...
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/12/copyright-doctrine-copy...
PDF: https://patentlyo.com/media/2018/12/16-2321_opn1.pdf
The 2000 mp3.com lawsuit is also interesting, though it didn't involve sharing.
https://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/06/technology/mp3com-loses-c...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMG_Recordings,_Inc._v._MP3.....
The lawsuit(s?) against Google's book scanning program are also interesting; I believe there was a discussion regarding this on HN somewhat recently, though I may be wrong
This current measure is beyond that, my guess is they're just willing to take the risk that somebody will sue them.
My limited understanding is that previously they had a 1:1 backing of physical book to what could be "checked out" digitally. Now with the NEL they've removed this backing and are duplicating copies without a physical book to match.
I'd really hate for the internet archive to run afoul of the law here and have it impact the other legal archiving that they do.
and they do have exemptions from DMCA somewhat
IA has deals with countless libraries, and since the libraries are closed, and the online schools are open, I very much doubt that IA will keep up with the temporary loss of the libraries or the needs of schools.
"Public support for this emergency measure has come from over 100 individuals, libraries and universities across the world"
Which makes very little sense. Royalties on books already pay out very little, and at very inconvenient timespans. It is probably not going to make any impact for most authors.
Yep, that's where we're at. Viewed 20 times more than 'You Can Negotiate Anything'.
"In around 2020 a severe pneumonia-like illness will spread throughout the globe, attacking the lungs and the bronchial tubes and resisting all known treatments. Almost more baffling than the illness itself will be the fact that it will suddenly vanish as quickly as it arrived, attack again ten years later, and then disappear completely."
I think it's complete bullshit, but also no surprise why it is so popular.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronavirus#Outbreaks_of_coron...
Filled out the captcha, and the "Sign Up" button is just spinning forever. It's been a few minutes.
IA is suspending the check-out logic they'd previously been using on these scans, which breaks that connection. Now a thousand people stuck at home can read the same scans free online.
(My opinion here, without thinking very hard, is that what IA is doing is reasonable for out-of-print books or books not available in ebook form, especially textbooks and such, but probably less reasonable for recent books easy available as ebooks. It may still be fair use in both cases, though.)
Libraries have had their day: Horrible Histories author: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/feb/13/libraries-horr...
Horrible Histories is a significant set of books, now also tv programmes, in the UK.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/fpsqm0/the_internet_...
Why does IA get to make that decision? I get why this has populist support, but that's not an excuse to commit piracy. I get that IA is popular, but I'd also be annoyed if a less popular company did this.
If this was a government level decision to nationalize bookstores, to waive library checkout limits, then I'd understand a little more. But some random company taking copyrighted material they don't own and distributing it without the consent or payment is something very different.
I'd further point out that publishers, copyright holders, etc also need money to operate. I get that they can be less of a sympathetic group than author, but they have rights and they have bills to pay.
Theres lots of public domain books, books from libraries, free online content, etc. Theres no reason we need this sort of piracy to get through the pandemic.
I do understand that it may be instinctual to leap to that position, but it isn't.
Usually, the books that appear on IA appear under the doctrine of "fair use".
However, that doctrine is adaptable to circumstances (which is actually written into the US law that governs fair use). All IA has done here, really, is suspend their waitlists, to make it more fair to the public to be able to read further, for education to continue, within a crisis.
They've also made it very clear that this is temporary. If it wasn't, you might have a case that it isn't fair use.
Part of why this falls under fair use is that their focus is on books that do not have a digital copy, apart from IA's scan, available online. This is specifically something that libraries are granted the ability to do. To scan and upload books that are not yet available.
The books that appear in this collection have been donated. However, if an authour wishes to remove their book, then there is a very simple and effective way available to them. (Linked to from the article) [0]
[0] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QjErbouWG7pUlzcxPcRk4YEt...
Reference?
However, a legal process that barely touches on the edges of (the relatively thin) margins is in fact unlikely to have a direct and immediate impact on anyone. That has no emotion attached to the statement.
This implies that "during the isolation period" modifies "harder to eat and pay rent" in a meaningful fashion. Restaurant workers are having a harder time paying rent.
Authors save for a privileged minority have traditionally struggled to pay rent as well but presumably no more than normally.
> 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
The purpose, in this case, is nonprofit educational purposes during a crisis. Such a purpose is generally looked upon more favourably, as it is presented as a humanitarian gesture in a time of crisis.
> 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
During a crisis, a temporary, and very clearly temporary and short-term, effort is unlikely to have an effect on the potential value of a copyrighted work.
As IA have aimed this collection at education it's probably also worth including:
> such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means ... teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
[0] All quotes come from Section 107, of the US Copyright Code.
>> "nobody is arguing that there’d be a 100% purchase rate"
The typical case against things like this does multiply downloads by sale price under the assumption each one is a lost sale. I've seen authors (obscure and prominent) scream about how many hundreds of thousands of dollars they're missing out on because they found their book on some torrent site.