5 ms·

Does anyone know how they're legally able to do this, when publishers make my local library buy a license for every concurrent copy of an ebook that someone che

Does anyone know how they're legally able to do this, when publishers make my local library buy a license for every concurrent copy of an ebook that someone checks out?

jrwr 7y ago
A lot of their books are 1 person checkout only and they do have exemptions from DMCA somewhat
leephillips 7y ago
They are not. They are violating copyright law, and stealing from writers and publishers. Twitter is full of complaints by writers who discovered their illegally scanned books here, pointing out that this will make it harder for them to eat and pay rent during the isolation period.
- 8bitsrule 7y ago
  In my whole life, I've never heard of a significant author who complained about one of their books being in a library, or about library patrons as 'thieves'. 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"
  - leephillips 7y ago
    This is not a complaint about libraries or library patrons. I love and use libraries. Authors love to see their books in libraries, including their ebooks. The details matter. Scanning a book and putting it on the internet without the right to do so is not what a library does.
    - dorchadas 7y ago
      I think there might be some misunderstanding. There was a good comment on Reddit [1] about how all this was legal. From what I gathered, libraries scanned books that didn't have digital copies already made, and offered them to patrons to "check out". They used software to make sure that they only checked out a total combined digital/print number equal to the number of print copies they had bought, with software to make sure they couldn't be copied. That seems fair, to me (and is, apparently, legal). The National Emergency Library basically opens that up to anyone now, however, with no limits on how many times a book can be checked out at once. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/fpsqm0/the_internet_archive_in_san_francisco_announced/flnsiq1/ https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/fpsqm0/the_internet_...
      - leephillips 7y ago
        I don't think there is a misunderstanding. In fact, your informative comment explains the crucial difference between what a legitimate, copyright-respecting library does and what the "Emergency Library" is doing. This is, in fact, why authors, who never complained about real libraries, are complaining about this.
    - justinclift 7y ago
      Didn't Google do that too a few years ago, and get away with it?
      - leephillips 7y ago
        No, they didn't get away with it, which is why they only display short excerpts from books in search results.
  - geofft 7y ago
    The distinction is that each library needs to buy a copy - if not several copies - of the book. Patrons of libraries cause money to end up in the pockets of authors/publishers. If a library wants to make a book available to multiple patrons, it needs to buy multiple copies. 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.)
  - DanBC 7y ago
    > I've never heard of a significant author who complained about one of their books being in a library, or about library patrons as 'thieves'. Libraries have had their day: Horrible Histories author: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/feb/13/libraries-horrible-histories-terry-deary 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.
- shakna 7y ago
  > pointing out that this will make it harder for them to eat and pay rent during the isolation period. 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.
  - leephillips 7y ago
    Thanks for deciding for authors whether they have a right to be paid for their labor.
    - shakna 7y ago
      Might want to tone down the snark just a tad. I am an authour, with around about twenty books on the market at the moment. 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.
  - thanksforfish 7y ago
    I'll try a less snarky rebuttal because I think there is a point here. 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.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - 7y ago
- aiscapehumanity 7y ago
  Imagine getting mad at archive for nearly doing the exact same thing that Google books does more or less. It's Google library but more liberal in it's approach, which was initially what Google wanted it's ebook part to be, an accessible elibrary, until authors who did not pay attention to the evolution of music distribution successfully pulled a partial injunction against them. Laughing in hexadecimal, until neural nets become the new authors in 25 years.
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  How will someone who always works remotely be financially impacted by isolation orders?
  - leephillips 7y ago
    If you steal my book from the "Emergency Library" instead of buying an electronic copy, I get financially impacted.
    - michaelmrose 7y ago
      > pointing out that this will make it harder for them to eat and pay rent during the isolation period. 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.
      - leephillips 7y ago
        Now I understand your point, which is a reasonable one. The situation is that the economy in general is tanking, people are not going to bookstores, etc., so authors, who, as you point out, are not wealthy, have even less income now. In other words, it's a particularly cruel time for the "Emergency Library" to be taking money out of their pockets.
        michaelmrose 7y ago
        So if most authors don't make a whole lot anyway if copyright went away or was drastically limited but you received basic income and medical would you be better off or worse?
    - philipps 7y ago
      You assume that everyone reading a copy of the book, would also be willing (or able) to purchase it. That’s not the case.
dorchadas 7y ago
Here is a comment on Reddit [1], from the copyright person cited in this article [2] about the legality of it. From what I can gather, libraries scanned books that didn't have digital copies already made, and offered them to patrons to "check out". They used software to make sure that they only checked out a total combined digital/print number equal to the number of print copies they had bought, with software to make sure they couldn't be copied. That seems fair, to me (and is, apparently, legal). The National Emergency Library basically opens that up to anyone now, however, with no limits on how many times a book can be checked out at once. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/fpsqm0/the_internet_archive_in_san_francisco_announced/flnsiq1/ https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/fpsqm0/the_internet_... [2]https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-national-emergency-library-is-a-gift-to-readers-everywhere https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-national-eme...
- geofft 7y ago
  They're making a fair use claim through the duration of the national emergency. The blog post and the linked statement of support alludes to it a bit more clearly: http://blog.archive.org/2020/03/24/announcing-a-national-emergency-library-to-provide-digitized-books-to-students-and-the-public/ http://blog.archive.org/2020/03/24/announcing-a-national-eme...
- dannyw 7y ago
  It is not 'apparently legal'. Ars' writers did an investigation, including talking to some independent attorneys, and the summary is that what they're doing is on shaky ground and likely to be ruled illegal. They are simply banking on authors not suing. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/03/internet-archive-offers-thousands-of-copyrighted-books-for-free-online/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/03/internet-archive...
  - labster 7y ago
    The authors are welcome to sue when the civil courts reopen in California, which may be a few months in the future, and already something of a fait accompli. It’s kind of like The Purge out here, albeit with felonies still illegal but most laws unenforceable and people sheltering inside in fear.
vvanders 7y ago
Most of the comments I've seen from authors have been pretty negative. 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.
kevingadd 7y ago
They have a partial DMCA exemption (from the US Library of Congress) and are legally recognized as a library by the state of California. Since (until now) they functioned like a library - you had to "check out" books and then return them - they've probably skated by without much trouble. They have taken down content in response to DMCA claims before. This current measure is beyond that, my guess is they're just willing to take the risk that somebody will sue them.
tingletech 7y ago
The Author's Guild is not impressed. https://www.authorsguild.org/industry-advocacy/internet-archives-uncontrolled-digital-lending/ https://www.authorsguild.org/industry-advocacy/internet-arch...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  Another business that may not survive the pandemic. Poor way to spend their limited resources.
sp332 7y ago
All digital lending has been legally dubious since the ReDigi case decided that sending someone a digital file counted as making a new copy. So far, the whole idea of lending exists in a gray area where publishers have simply decided not to sue. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/03/internet-archive-offers-thousands-of-copyrighted-books-for-free-online/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/03/internet-archive...
- efreak 7y ago
  > All digital lending has been legally dubious since the ReDigi case decided that sending someone a digital file counted as making a new copy. So far, the whole idea of lending exists in a gray area where publishers have simply decided not to sue. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/03/internet-archive.. 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/copyright/article/56646-grimmelmann-redigi-digital-first-sale-and-star-trek.html https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/digital/copyrig... https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/16-2321/16-2321-2018-12-12.html https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/16... https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/business/media/redigi-loses-suit-over-reselling-of-digital-music.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/business/media/redigi-los... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_LLC_v._ReDigi_Inc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_LLC_v._ReDi.... More recent news: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181217/17092841253/appeals-court-hands-redigi-another-loss-says-reselling-mp3s-violates-copyright-law.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181217/17092841253/appea... https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/12/copyright-doctrine-copydelete.html https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/12/copyright-doctrine-copy... PDF: https://patentlyo.com/media/2018/12/16-2321_opn1.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-copyright-case.html https://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/06/technology/mp3com-loses-c... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMG_Recordings,_Inc._v._MP3.com,_Inc 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

Does anyone know how they're legally able to do this, when publishers make my local library buy a license for every concurrent copy of an ebook that someone checks out?

jrwr 7y ago

A lot of their books are 1 person checkout only and they do have exemptions from DMCA somewhat

leephillips 7y ago

They are not. They are violating copyright law, and stealing from writers and publishers. Twitter is full of complaints by writers who discovered their illegally scanned books here, pointing out that this will make it harder for them to eat and pay rent during the isolation period.

8bitsrule 7y ago
In my whole life, I've never heard of a significant author who complained about one of their books being in a library, or about library patrons as 'thieves'. 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"
- leephillips 7y ago
  This is not a complaint about libraries or library patrons. I love and use libraries. Authors love to see their books in libraries, including their ebooks. The details matter. Scanning a book and putting it on the internet without the right to do so is not what a library does.
  - dorchadas 7y ago
    I think there might be some misunderstanding. There was a good comment on Reddit [1] about how all this was legal. From what I gathered, libraries scanned books that didn't have digital copies already made, and offered them to patrons to "check out". They used software to make sure that they only checked out a total combined digital/print number equal to the number of print copies they had bought, with software to make sure they couldn't be copied. That seems fair, to me (and is, apparently, legal). The National Emergency Library basically opens that up to anyone now, however, with no limits on how many times a book can be checked out at once. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/fpsqm0/the_internet_archive_in_san_francisco_announced/flnsiq1/ https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/fpsqm0/the_internet_...
    - leephillips 7y ago
      I don't think there is a misunderstanding. In fact, your informative comment explains the crucial difference between what a legitimate, copyright-respecting library does and what the "Emergency Library" is doing. This is, in fact, why authors, who never complained about real libraries, are complaining about this.
  - justinclift 7y ago
    Didn't Google do that too a few years ago, and get away with it?
    - leephillips 7y ago
      No, they didn't get away with it, which is why they only display short excerpts from books in search results.
- geofft 7y ago
  The distinction is that each library needs to buy a copy - if not several copies - of the book. Patrons of libraries cause money to end up in the pockets of authors/publishers. If a library wants to make a book available to multiple patrons, it needs to buy multiple copies. 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.)
- DanBC 7y ago
  > I've never heard of a significant author who complained about one of their books being in a library, or about library patrons as 'thieves'. Libraries have had their day: Horrible Histories author: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/feb/13/libraries-horrible-histories-terry-deary 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.
shakna 7y ago
> pointing out that this will make it harder for them to eat and pay rent during the isolation period. 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.
- leephillips 7y ago
  Thanks for deciding for authors whether they have a right to be paid for their labor.
  - shakna 7y ago
    Might want to tone down the snark just a tad. I am an authour, with around about twenty books on the market at the moment. 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.
- thanksforfish 7y ago
  I'll try a less snarky rebuttal because I think there is a point here. 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.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - 7y ago
aiscapehumanity 7y ago
Imagine getting mad at archive for nearly doing the exact same thing that Google books does more or less. It's Google library but more liberal in it's approach, which was initially what Google wanted it's ebook part to be, an accessible elibrary, until authors who did not pay attention to the evolution of music distribution successfully pulled a partial injunction against them. Laughing in hexadecimal, until neural nets become the new authors in 25 years.
michaelmrose 7y ago
How will someone who always works remotely be financially impacted by isolation orders?
- leephillips 7y ago
  If you steal my book from the "Emergency Library" instead of buying an electronic copy, I get financially impacted.
  - michaelmrose 7y ago
    > pointing out that this will make it harder for them to eat and pay rent during the isolation period. 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.
    - leephillips 7y ago
      Now I understand your point, which is a reasonable one. The situation is that the economy in general is tanking, people are not going to bookstores, etc., so authors, who, as you point out, are not wealthy, have even less income now. In other words, it's a particularly cruel time for the "Emergency Library" to be taking money out of their pockets.
      - michaelmrose 7y ago
        So if most authors don't make a whole lot anyway if copyright went away or was drastically limited but you received basic income and medical would you be better off or worse?
  - philipps 7y ago
    You assume that everyone reading a copy of the book, would also be willing (or able) to purchase it. That’s not the case.

dorchadas 7y ago

Here is a comment on Reddit [1], from the copyright person cited in this article [2] about the legality of it. From what I can gather, libraries scanned books that didn't have digital copies already made, and offered them to patrons to "check out". They used software to make sure that they only checked out a total combined digital/print number equal to the number of print copies they had bought, with software to make sure they couldn't be copied. That seems fair, to me (and is, apparently, legal). The National Emergency Library basically opens that up to anyone now, however, with no limits on how many times a book can be checked out at once. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/fpsqm0/the_internet_archive_in_san_francisco_announced/flnsiq1/ https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/fpsqm0/the_internet_... [2]https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-national-emergency-library-is-a-gift-to-readers-everywhere https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-national-eme...

geofft 7y ago
They're making a fair use claim through the duration of the national emergency. The blog post and the linked statement of support alludes to it a bit more clearly: http://blog.archive.org/2020/03/24/announcing-a-national-emergency-library-to-provide-digitized-books-to-students-and-the-public/ http://blog.archive.org/2020/03/24/announcing-a-national-eme...
dannyw 7y ago
It is not 'apparently legal'. Ars' writers did an investigation, including talking to some independent attorneys, and the summary is that what they're doing is on shaky ground and likely to be ruled illegal. They are simply banking on authors not suing. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/03/internet-archive-offers-thousands-of-copyrighted-books-for-free-online/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/03/internet-archive...
- labster 7y ago
  The authors are welcome to sue when the civil courts reopen in California, which may be a few months in the future, and already something of a fait accompli. It’s kind of like The Purge out here, albeit with felonies still illegal but most laws unenforceable and people sheltering inside in fear.

vvanders 7y ago

Most of the comments I've seen from authors have been pretty negative. 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.

kevingadd 7y ago

They have a partial DMCA exemption (from the US Library of Congress) and are legally recognized as a library by the state of California. Since (until now) they functioned like a library - you had to "check out" books and then return them - they've probably skated by without much trouble. They have taken down content in response to DMCA claims before. This current measure is beyond that, my guess is they're just willing to take the risk that somebody will sue them.

tingletech 7y ago

The Author's Guild is not impressed. https://www.authorsguild.org/industry-advocacy/internet-archives-uncontrolled-digital-lending/ https://www.authorsguild.org/industry-advocacy/internet-arch...

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
toomuchtodo 7y ago
Another business that may not survive the pandemic. Poor way to spend their limited resources.

sp332 7y ago

All digital lending has been legally dubious since the ReDigi case decided that sending someone a digital file counted as making a new copy. So far, the whole idea of lending exists in a gray area where publishers have simply decided not to sue. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/03/internet-archive-offers-thousands-of-copyrighted-books-for-free-online/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/03/internet-archive...

efreak 7y ago
> All digital lending has been legally dubious since the ReDigi case decided that sending someone a digital file counted as making a new copy. So far, the whole idea of lending exists in a gray area where publishers have simply decided not to sue. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/03/internet-archive.. 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/copyright/article/56646-grimmelmann-redigi-digital-first-sale-and-star-trek.html https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/digital/copyrig... https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/16-2321/16-2321-2018-12-12.html https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/16... https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/business/media/redigi-loses-suit-over-reselling-of-digital-music.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/business/media/redigi-los... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_LLC_v._ReDigi_Inc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_LLC_v._ReDi.... More recent news: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181217/17092841253/appeals-court-hands-redigi-another-loss-says-reselling-mp3s-violates-copyright-law.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181217/17092841253/appea... https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/12/copyright-doctrine-copydelete.html https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/12/copyright-doctrine-copy... PDF: https://patentlyo.com/media/2018/12/16-2321_opn1.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-copyright-case.html https://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/06/technology/mp3com-loses-c... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMG_Recordings,_Inc._v._MP3.com,_Inc 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