13 ms·

Internet Archive responds: Why we released the National Emergency Library

339 points by sp332 7y ago

thelean12 7y ago
Why reimplement waitlists later if this is legal? Is the answer that it probably isn't legal and they're just hoping for the best here?
- sgift 7y ago
  Things can be legal in specific situations even if it's illegal in others. It's up to courts to decide on that.
- ComputerGuru 7y ago
  They know (and wouldn't deny) it's against normal copyright law and an infringement of the IP of the authors/publishers; they are hoping that courts would side with them as a "war-time emergency measure taken in the national interest." I am deeply appreciative of the Internet Archive which is why I probably wouldn't have taken that bet. It would be horrible if their solvency and future relied on the outcome of the inevitable lawsuits to follow, and I don't think the risk (of losing IA) is worth the benefit (and this is why things this important should be government-backed so that they can ignore some laws with impunity in time of need, or at least without risking their very existence). Personally, I'd have switched to shorter waitlists first (e.g. 24 hours or even 4 hours). But I'm not a domain expert; what do I know?
  - btilly 7y ago
    More than that, I would guess that they will defend themselves with an argument like the following. They will claim that they are lending out copies of books locked up in other libraries. And there are librarians from said libraries willing to testify that they have agreed to allow this. They have ceased tracking inventory because getting a detailed inventory under current conditions is challenging. But they believe that the number of copies that they have available exceeds the number that will get lent. If challenged, they will have the number of book X lent out on file. As long as they can find more libraries willing to say "We authorize them to lend the copy we can't lend physically because of quarantine" than they lent copies, this argument has a shot.
  - Igelau 7y ago
    > It would be horrible if their solvency and future relied on the outcome of the inevitable lawsuits to follow I wonder if the wheels are already coming off. Otherwise it seems a bit excessive for IA to suddenly bet the whole house on this.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - JadeNB 7y ago
      > Otherwise it seems a bit excessive for IA to suddenly bet the whole house on this. What is the proper and proportionate response to a pandemic? I think that no-one knows, and, if I were in their shoes, then I'd rather history see me as the one who went too far in pursuit of the public good than the one who didn't do what I could have for fear that it was too much.
      - geofft 7y ago
        A lot of terrible things have been done by people who went too far in pursuit of what they thought was the public good. One potential proportionate response, in my opinion, would have been to lean harder on the existing model of Controlled Digital Lending (where each lent e-book is backed by a physical book), and instead of saying they're going to move to uncontrolled lending, put out a call for people to buy more backing copies for the duration of the pandemic, specifically identifying the books that were in more demand. Then they could have gotten those books into the hands of more people while also paying authors more.
        silverreads 7y ago
        This comment hardly adds anything productive here and makes a heck of an accusation. What damage has sharing books freely during a national emergency ever done to anyone? The authors lose nothing and gain readers.
        geofft 7y ago
- sp332 7y ago
  Copyright infringement is generally a civil matter. That means someone has to bother to sue you before there are legal consequences. They're betting that publishers won't take the PR hit of suing a non-profit providing a public service during an emergency. And since the opt-out is so easy, the amount of damages someone could claim are probably pretty darn small.
  - wolco 7y ago
    Unless you own a domain and they just take it away. Now you get to sue them.
  - sp332 7y ago
    Late edit: they're really going out of their way to remove authors who don't want to be included. https://twitter.com/textfiles/status/1244793574073524229 https://twitter.com/textfiles/status/1244793574073524229
    - geofft 7y ago
      I'm a little worried that "I'd like to work with them" isn't "I'd like to remove them proactively." This reads to me like a request for crowd-sourced snitch-tagging.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - sp332 7y ago
        Late update, but they're putting in more effort to make sure authors don't get abuse. https://twitter.com/textfiles/status/1247612061732999172 https://twitter.com/textfiles/status/1247612061732999172
- en4bz 7y ago
  It's not legal. They are hoping that people will be chill given the circumstances. Controlled digital lending has to match the model of a library/video rental stores where you borrow/rent something for a few days then return it. Even if you are not actively using the App/Website, which is easily detectable, they cannot return the item to their digital pool while you have it checked out. Companies have tried to create Just In Time (JIT) media services that return digital items to a pool when you are not actively using them. This essentially creates micro loans with a time span of minutes to hours. I can't remember the name of the company that was attempting this but they were shutdown due to a copyright lawsuit. EDIT: They actually mention the company in the FAQ. ReDigi lost their lawsuit [1]. [1] http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/68b0f5b0-9593-4dd2-b23e-2f782e6042c5/1/doc/16-2321_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/68b0f5b0-9593-4dd2-b23e-2f782e6042c5/1/hilite/ http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/68b0f5b0-959...
AdmiralAsshat 7y ago
> What about those who say we’re stealing from authors & publishers? Has any normal human being who is not a publisher or an author actually made this claim?
- Veen 7y ago
  If you look around, you’ll also find photographers, painters, videographers, illustrators, designers, and musicians making similar arguments.
- geofft 7y ago
  I'm not a publisher or an author (I'm an SRE, I've never made income from the sale of anything I have copyright from, and I've many times been on the side of fair use as a hobbyist musician) and I'm willing to make that claim. It's as straightforward, IMO, as the claim that not tipping is stealing. Yes, technically, it's merely not giving them money that they expect, it's not taking money they already have. But the practical effect is that it subverts a revenue stream that, for better or worse (definitely worse, in the case of tipping), they rely on, and it was reasonable (legal and socially acceptable) for them to rely on that revenue stream. I'd like to live in a world where authors didn't rely on copyright law for their living. I'd also like to live in a world where waitstaff didn't rely on tips to make minimum wage, let alone a living wage. I don't.
  - yesenadam 7y ago
    > I'd also like to live in a world where waitstaff didn't rely on tips to make minimum wage, let alone a living wage. I don't. You do, mostly. I believe it's just the USA where obligatory "tipping" is a thing. I learnt a bit about the history of tipping from Adam Ruins Everything S01E05 Adam Ruins Restaurants, highly recommended. Excerpt about tipping, <4mins: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_vivC7c_1k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_vivC7c_1k (Yes, his style is a lil in-your-face, but the content is excellent, and often shows onscreen the title and author of papers referenced - how many shows do that?!)
    - leephillips 7y ago
jfengel 7y ago
So under ordinary circumstances, when they do their Controlled Digital Lending, for each copy they lend out there's an actual dead-tree book sitting on a shelf somewhere?
- btilly 7y ago
  Exactly.
  - textfiles 7y ago
    Yes, there are a number of warehouses with millions of books in boxes, indexed down to the book (hence the metadata of a book has a physical location in it).
    - sdenton4 7y ago
      I believe there was an only-half-joking plan to drop shipping containers of books to the bottom of the Bay, which would avoid the need to pay for storage on land. (Want to check the book is really there? Here's a snorkel...) Or, in other words, Rai Stone coins, but books. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rai_stones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rai_stones
  - ddevault 7y ago
    That is obscene. Screw copyright.
    - pessimizer 7y ago
      I wouldn't call it obscene; having a physical copy is a good backup. Maybe we could say we're allowing digital lending libraries to violate copyrights enough to distribute copies over the internet as long as they contribute to physical conservation as well.
      - marvindanig 7y ago
        yikes, those dead trees mean zero backup or conservation as opposed to distributed storage off of the web. this is a lame miscarriage of a copyright law that is outdated.
phendrenad2 7y ago
Anyone know which authors have opted out? It would be interesting to hear their reasons why in their own words.
- mirimir 7y ago
  One would hope that there's a notice to that effect, when users attempt to access their works.
- mcguire 7y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22731637 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22731637 The linked article mentions Colson Whitehead, Neil Gaiman, and Alexander Chee, and the Twitter threads have other authors, although I didn't recognize any of them.
- Zonulet 7y ago
  I am an author with three books on there, and I've just emailed them to opt out. One reason authors are fine with libraries lending out their books for free, electronically or otherwise, is that borrowing a library copy is always a little bit less convenient than buying your own – with waits for availability and so on – which gives readers an incentive to pay if they can afford it. Once the library experience is almost indistinguishable from the paid experience, there is no reason for anyone to pay except as a kind of donation to the author. Yes, some generous people will choose to do this, but others won't, and we lose sales. I am a mid-list author. I am not so successful that I will do fine whatever happens, nor am I so unsuccessful that writing is just a weekend hobby for me. Like many authors, writing is my career, but it's on a knife edge, and every sale counts. I've sat for an hour at a signing table just to sell four books, and I would again. I spent five years working on my last book. People complain about 'legacy publishers', but I couldn't have done that without the support of a legacy publisher. Everything that further chips away at my sales reduces the chances that my publisher will be able to support me in the future, and so it reduces the chances that I will be able to put that same time and effort into another book. By 'liberating' the literature of today, these people are strangling the literature of the future.
  - 7y ago
dang 7y ago
Recent and related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22716923 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22716923 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22731637 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22731637 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22715009 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22715009 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22681132 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22681132
dvduval 7y ago
There are lots of children still going to school, and there's no simple way for them to obtain books that previously would have been available for free. It is sort of a reading emergency! Now where I live the library system is awesome, and I found the selection was way better than Barnes & Noble. Libraries purchase a lot of books every year and it's no small amount of money. That being said it's also wasteful for many people to buy a book only to read it once. So we need to put more thought into how we can do this so we aren't so wasteful.
- wolco 7y ago
  Wasteful money wise? Or timewise? Or resources (paper/trees)? I remember re-reading many sections of a book before I understood it. Some get read others never and some re-read.
- pergadad 7y ago
  Having a home library has many more functions than just storing books you've once read. It's a signaling device; it's a way to show your character:; it's a way to have a possibility to share materials with others; it's a way to show your children your values; it's a reminder of things you've learned; it's soothing for many to have books around; they can be a useful reference or inspiration; ... Books are not just a throwaway product like a daily newspaper - they have many roles to play. I am moving away from kindle for exactly these reasons above; I'm sad I don't have these benefits with the many books I read digitally.
  - spodek 7y ago
    I used to think all of that. Then getting rid of my books improved my life more than almost any other act. It took time and a few rounds of culling, but transformed how I looked at possessions and led to reducing much of my other stuff. I wrote it up, hoping it might help someone like I was: https://joshuaspodek.com/less_please https://joshuaspodek.com/less_please.
  - SAI_Peregrinus 7y ago
    My home library is mostly of two sorts: reference books I might need (field guides, math/engineering texts, knot books, etc) and books I haven't read yet. After all, who wants a library full of books they've already read? If I particularly like a book and expect I'd re-read it, I'll keep it, but the rest I donate.
Traster 7y ago
You know you're doing well when your uptime beats physical libraries. IA are taking a risk by doing this, but it's very clearly pursuing their charitable mandate.
- ineedasername 7y ago
  Wouldn't the uptime of any website beat that of physical libraries which (mostly) shutdown for about 1/3 of the day?
mcherm 7y ago
Dear Internet Archive: Not only do I support the measure you have taken and feel that it falls within the bounds of pro-social fair use, but I applaud the measures you have taken that are so important in this extreme time. Furthermore, if any court finds that your action was not appropriate, I will urge my lawmakers to craft a specific exception to copyright law to support the internet archive lending at all times, not just during a national emergency.
- egfx 7y ago
  But sucks they neglected gifcities. It hasn’t worked for a while https://gifcities.org/?q=dog https://gifcities.org/?q=dog What happened?
  - sp332 7y ago
    There's a contact email at the bottom of https://gifcities.org/?about-gifcities https://gifcities.org/?about-gifcities Maybe just ask them?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - egfx 7y ago
      I emailed gifcities and now it’s back up! They are working on making it faster.
- tzs 7y ago
  > Furthermore, if any court finds that your action was not appropriate, I will urge my lawmakers to craft a specific exception to copyright law to support the internet archive lending at all times, not just during a national emergency. Would there be any limits to your proposed exception? Or could they buy a single copy of a book and lend out as many simultaneous copies as readers asked for?
  - thescriptkiddie 7y ago
axguscbklp 7y ago
Given that this is a time of emergency, I think that definitely a good argument can be made for relaxing copyright laws. That said, many commenters on this subject are extending the discussion into a general discussion on the value of copyright, and there I cannot fully agree with the notion that copyright is a bad thing. I pirate stuff too (although I try to limit my piracy) but one difference between me and many other pirates is that I know that I am sometimes hurting people when I pirate. I don't try to console myself with ideological contrivances designed to help me avoid feeling responsibility for causing harm to others.
- techsupporter 7y ago
  > I pirate stuff too (although I try to limit my piracy)... I’m not sure what you mean here; how do you try? Pirating content instead of paying for it is rather binary: you either paid the requested charge for it and obtained it in line with the mechanism the author or creator used to sell it...or you didn’t. If you have no option to pay because the creator didn’t make one available to you, that’s still piracy, isn’t it? If you respect copyright, and presumably a creator’s ability to make money off of their creations (within time limits, which I firmly believe are way too long in most of the world), I think there’s not much grey in this area. As a wise philosopher once said, there isn’t really a “try” here, in my view. You either paid or you didn’t. So, why not not pirating? Am I off-base?
  - jacobwilliamroy 7y ago
    Sometimes digital copies of things just aren't for sale, but I still want them.
  - axguscbklp 7y ago
    I agree that pirating vs. not pirating a given item of content is rather binary. What I mean by "I try to limit my piracy" is that I try not to pirate too many distinct items of content.
  - chipotle_coyote 7y ago
    I think I get what the OP meant, or at least I have my interpretation of it. I used to be fairly blasé about pirating software, justifying it with the belief that the prices were just too high. I came to believe that was really a pretty weak justification. I went through a somewhat similar change of belief later when it came to video; it's easy to talk yourself into the belief that copying TV shows and movies for free is somehow a strike against big corporations, but unless you're up for entirely reinventing the way our economy works, at the end of the day somebody really does have to pay for those shows and movies to be created, and pirating them is essentially declaring "I want to enjoy this work, I just want somebody else to pay for me doing so." But: There are cases where you might want to give your money to a creator or publisher and you literally can't. Up until a few years ago, no amount of money would have been able to get you the whole series of WKRP in Cincinnati on DVD, especially with the original music, for instance. The soundtrack for The Last Unicorn was never released on CD anywhere but Germany, as far as I can tell, and it's become a rare, expensive collector's item. There are hundreds of TV shows like this, thousands of movies, thousands of records, thousands of novels, thousands of programs -- and I'm probably vastly underestimating each of those categories. Their analog releases, if they were ever made, are long out of print and they were never officially released digitally. And, I'll admit, in those cases I'm perfectly okay with piracy. The rights holder either can't or won't release it, and you can't get it legally. One can argue in such a case you'd have a moral obligation to buy an official release if and when it's made, perhaps, but that may never happen. If what
hilbert42 7y ago
Here we go again, more hair-trigger bitching and whining from The Authors Guild and its ilk. No matter how noble or justified the cause for copying may be, the poor little darlings just can't help themselves. They've been screaming and whinging over being supposedly hard done by with respect to copyright royalties even before that arch villain, bully and saint to copyright owners, Victor Hugo, bulldozed unfair changes to copyright through the 1886 Berne Copyright Convention. …And 'bulldozed' is the right word; for in the early days of the 1880s consumers and end-users of copyright material essentially had no representation at the Berne Convention (as obviously one would expect), thus the power imbalance between authors/copyright holders and consumers/users of copyright material was so one-sided in favor of the former group that if the Berne Convention had been convened today with the same terms of reference as those in 1886 then its deliberations and decisions would likely be deemed to have arrived from corrupt processes. For starters, Berne essentially never touched on matters such as the fact that authors get their ideas, life experience and knowledge mostly from the public domain and that many were even educated or gained their knowledge at public expense, and thus they should have some reciprocal if not moral obligation to the return at least some of their output back into the public domain. Instead, the Berne Convention so favored authors that they had nothing to do to justify or prove their right over the copyright of a work other than the existence of the work itself. That means that the onus always falls on consumers/users of copyrighted works to determine their status (Berne essentially encourages authors to 'double-dip' or take from both sides, it absolves them of having any obligation to anyone but tothemselves). In effect, Hugo and his cronies used shrewdness and cunning to get every damn thing they wished for out of the Berne Convention—they had carte blanche, as there was no effective opposition to their proposals. 'Unfairness' was the order of the day. Trouble is, this mob was so successful at Berne that ever since they've assumed that they've a god-given right to take umbrage and raise utter hell whenever anyone takes the slightest liberties with copyright—even if those actions are lawful. You'll note there's always one theme that perennially underpins their complaints and that's how little the mean income that authors receive from royalties actually is. Well my response to that is if writing etc. brings in so little income then why do they have it as their occupation? Of course, we all know that being an author (with some exceptions) is often more a case of self-aggrandizement and wanting to be immortalized in print forever than it is to inform the world of new ideas through new works. As Cory Doctorow has pointed out, one of the major problems in trying to achieve equitable copyright reform for everyone is—with the exception of authors and rights holders—that so few people are actually interested in the subject. Despite the fact that copyright is an important issue, the lack of widespread expertise in the subject together with the fact that little serious public debate on the matter is taking place are both significant impediments to copyright reform. In the meantime, the whiners will continue to bitch and whinge. I reckon it's best just to ignore them.
buggeroff 7y ago
Shut up, you insufferable prick.
chx 7y ago
Oh cut the bullshit > This means that multiple readers can access a digital book simultaneously So this is just piracy. That's not how book lending works.
eatonphil 7y ago
I'm unfamiliar with their library contents and this thread didn't go into a lot of detail. Their sci-fi section (sorted by most "viewed") includes many classics by authors such as Asimov, Phillip K. Dick, Bradbury, Vonnegut, etc. Looks like a good offering.
- robin_reala 7y ago
  Interestingly for Philip K. Dick, a lot of his stuff is in the official public domain already, due to a missed copyright renewal: https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/philip-k-dick/short-fiction https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/philip-k-dick/short-fictio...
supernova87a 7y ago
I think the virus situation is exposing the difference in what rules or behavior people / companies think society will put up with, and what people will really put up with / want when push comes to shove. (And, by the way, in so many things, not just this story.)
- twomoretime 7y ago
  The world has been a cooking timebomb and COVID is a fuse. We're about to see layers of bullshit blown away, and believe me, our society is caked in it - in advertising, in politics, in entertainment, in industry. Nothing feels genuine anymore. Race to the bottom dollar with MBA style, soul sucking optimization throughout. A cleansing fire, perhaps; a deserved reminder that our reality is one of a stone's throw from death. A necessary lesson for an angry but complacent society that has grown fat and weak with comfort and convenience. I struggle to otherwise explain the near total global failure to deal with a pandemic which was evident as early as January.
  - FillardMillmore 7y ago
    Are societies in Africa and the Middle East that are dealing with this virus 'fat and weak with comfort and convenience'? Do poor and oppressed people in China hit with this virus deserve this reminder that our reality and existence is fragile? Who says there's been a 'near total global failure to deal' with this pandemic? We're dealing with it right now, and countries around the world are taking drastic steps and decisive action. Perhaps we weren't as prepared as we should've been and I think that case can readily be made, but to think that because you can't explain our lack of preparation, it must mean that this virus and the resulting fallout were 'deserved' or 'necessary' seems pretty cold-hearted in light of all the people affected by this who already were struggling from paycheck to paycheck, just trying to get by and possibly improve their standing in life.
  - mrslave 7y ago
    You may be right but nobody cares. People by and large want simple stories, and the story will be "Coronavirus caused all the problems." The same people will be in charge on the other side. They will admit no responsibility for making our societies this fragile in the first place and blame all ills on unforeseen externalities. Rinse and repeat.
sidcool 7y ago
What are some good books to read from the internet archive?
tgsovlerkhgsel 7y ago
Still not answering my most burning question: How does this work with copyright etc.? Do they just ignore it, assuming that doing the right thing in an emergency situation will be made legal later? I'd be really interested in their legal argument/analysis and decision-making (whether it's "the emergency changes what represent fair use", "there are laws that allow extraordinary measures in case of emergencies and we claim it's that", or "screw this paper-pushing bullshit and do what's right"). And regardless of this, I fully support this decision of course.
leephillips 7y ago
This response by the Internet Archive focuses on easily refutable claims, such as that they acquired their books illegally, while sidestepping the one substantive issue: that they had no legal right to replace the controlled digital lending process that they had been following with uncontrolled lending. This is what so many authors and publishers are objecting to; and they are right to point out that this resembles simple piracy.
- pawelk 7y ago
  Ideally they'd extend the limits of simultaneously lended copies by how many were there in libraries that are now closed, acting as a proxy to the physical copies that are now locked down. But this would take a long time to implement, they'd have to set up a system that gives each library the opportunity to submit their inventory and allow IA to act on the library behalf by lending their books.
- toyg 7y ago
  It’s not “uncontrolled” - borrowing only lasts two weeks. They say so in the post.
  - boomlinde 7y ago
    The sense in which it is uncontrolled is that there is no queue. People can borrow the "same book" simultaneously, where this would normally be limited to the number of copies the library owns.
- jka 7y ago
  I was curious about your mention of authors and publishers complaining, since I hadn't seen any objections yet. This led me to complaints by The Authors Guild[1] (as detailed in an article by The Guardian[2]) and three other authors mentioned in an NPR article[3]. Since then I've also discovered a statement by the Association of American Publishers[4] linked from the HN submission. Some of the focus is on the revenue that authors make from their publications and some of it is on the legality of making the content more accessible. It is worth reading the original HN submission link, as it contains some useful clarifications around the way the National Emergency Library operates; including, for example, that access to content is on a 2-week loan basis and requires the content to be checked-out from the library The Internet Archive have also updated their National Emergency Library FAQ[5] in response to the debate. It'd be good to discover whether the National Emergency Library ends up increasing awareness and access to publications temporarily, and whether they will collect and distribute any funds after-the-fact based on readership. [1] - https://www.authorsguild.org/industry-advocacy/internet-archives-uncontrolled-digital-lending/ https://www.authorsguild.org/industry-advocacy/internet-arch... [2] - https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/mar/30/internet-archive-accused-of-using-covid-19-as-an-excuse-for-piracy https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/mar/30/internet-archi... [3] - https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=823797545 https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=823797545 [4] - https://publishers.org/news/comment-from-aap-president-and-ceo-maria-pallante-on-the-internet-archives-national-emergency-library/ https://publishers.org/news/comment-from-aap-president-and-c... [5] - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QjErbouWG7pUlzcxPcRk4YEtbYs8ItlVTgLa1DfGh68/edit https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QjErbouWG7pUlzcxPcRk4YEt...
tibbydudeza 7y ago
And how much different is books from movies being streamed on Netflix ???. It is time for the publishing industry and novelists to get with the times and adopt a new model.
- Zonulet 7y ago
  They tried this, it was called Kindle Unlimited and it turned out to be terrible for most authors.
musicale 7y ago
It is discouraging that so much effort is spent attempting to impose the limitations of printed books onto PDFs.
cycomanic 7y ago
There is an easy solution to this problem. All libraries that are closed world wide report which books they have available at the moment to the Internet archive who then lends it out digitally. Then every lend is backed by a physical copy. I bet the usual suspects would still complain. It is very hard to feel for publishers if one looks at all the shenanigans they do around eBook lending. Libraries tend to pay significantly more than other bulk buyers for the same books and there is a limited number of "lends" on the books for example. https://goodereader.com/blog/e-book-news/here-is-a-breakdown-of-how-much-libraries-pay-for-ebooks-from-publishers https://goodereader.com/blog/e-book-news/here-is-a-breakdown...

339 points by sp332 7y ago

Why reimplement waitlists later if this is legal? Is the answer that it probably isn't legal and they're just hoping for the best here?

sgift 7y ago
Things can be legal in specific situations even if it's illegal in others. It's up to courts to decide on that.
ComputerGuru 7y ago
They know (and wouldn't deny) it's against normal copyright law and an infringement of the IP of the authors/publishers; they are hoping that courts would side with them as a "war-time emergency measure taken in the national interest." I am deeply appreciative of the Internet Archive which is why I probably wouldn't have taken that bet. It would be horrible if their solvency and future relied on the outcome of the inevitable lawsuits to follow, and I don't think the risk (of losing IA) is worth the benefit (and this is why things this important should be government-backed so that they can ignore some laws with impunity in time of need, or at least without risking their very existence). Personally, I'd have switched to shorter waitlists first (e.g. 24 hours or even 4 hours). But I'm not a domain expert; what do I know?
- btilly 7y ago
  More than that, I would guess that they will defend themselves with an argument like the following. They will claim that they are lending out copies of books locked up in other libraries. And there are librarians from said libraries willing to testify that they have agreed to allow this. They have ceased tracking inventory because getting a detailed inventory under current conditions is challenging. But they believe that the number of copies that they have available exceeds the number that will get lent. If challenged, they will have the number of book X lent out on file. As long as they can find more libraries willing to say "We authorize them to lend the copy we can't lend physically because of quarantine" than they lent copies, this argument has a shot.
- Igelau 7y ago
  > It would be horrible if their solvency and future relied on the outcome of the inevitable lawsuits to follow I wonder if the wheels are already coming off. Otherwise it seems a bit excessive for IA to suddenly bet the whole house on this.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - JadeNB 7y ago
    > Otherwise it seems a bit excessive for IA to suddenly bet the whole house on this. What is the proper and proportionate response to a pandemic? I think that no-one knows, and, if I were in their shoes, then I'd rather history see me as the one who went too far in pursuit of the public good than the one who didn't do what I could have for fear that it was too much.
    - geofft 7y ago
      A lot of terrible things have been done by people who went too far in pursuit of what they thought was the public good. One potential proportionate response, in my opinion, would have been to lean harder on the existing model of Controlled Digital Lending (where each lent e-book is backed by a physical book), and instead of saying they're going to move to uncontrolled lending, put out a call for people to buy more backing copies for the duration of the pandemic, specifically identifying the books that were in more demand. Then they could have gotten those books into the hands of more people while also paying authors more.
      - silverreads 7y ago
        This comment hardly adds anything productive here and makes a heck of an accusation. What damage has sharing books freely during a national emergency ever done to anyone? The authors lose nothing and gain readers.
        geofft 7y ago
sp332 7y ago
Copyright infringement is generally a civil matter. That means someone has to bother to sue you before there are legal consequences. They're betting that publishers won't take the PR hit of suing a non-profit providing a public service during an emergency. And since the opt-out is so easy, the amount of damages someone could claim are probably pretty darn small.
- wolco 7y ago
  Unless you own a domain and they just take it away. Now you get to sue them.
- sp332 7y ago
  Late edit: they're really going out of their way to remove authors who don't want to be included. https://twitter.com/textfiles/status/1244793574073524229 https://twitter.com/textfiles/status/1244793574073524229
  - geofft 7y ago
    I'm a little worried that "I'd like to work with them" isn't "I'd like to remove them proactively." This reads to me like a request for crowd-sourced snitch-tagging.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - sp332 7y ago
      Late update, but they're putting in more effort to make sure authors don't get abuse. https://twitter.com/textfiles/status/1247612061732999172 https://twitter.com/textfiles/status/1247612061732999172
en4bz 7y ago
It's not legal. They are hoping that people will be chill given the circumstances. Controlled digital lending has to match the model of a library/video rental stores where you borrow/rent something for a few days then return it. Even if you are not actively using the App/Website, which is easily detectable, they cannot return the item to their digital pool while you have it checked out. Companies have tried to create Just In Time (JIT) media services that return digital items to a pool when you are not actively using them. This essentially creates micro loans with a time span of minutes to hours. I can't remember the name of the company that was attempting this but they were shutdown due to a copyright lawsuit. EDIT: They actually mention the company in the FAQ. ReDigi lost their lawsuit [1]. [1] http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/68b0f5b0-9593-4dd2-b23e-2f782e6042c5/1/doc/16-2321_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/68b0f5b0-9593-4dd2-b23e-2f782e6042c5/1/hilite/ http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/68b0f5b0-959...

AdmiralAsshat 7y ago

> What about those who say we’re stealing from authors & publishers? Has any normal human being who is not a publisher or an author actually made this claim?

Veen 7y ago
If you look around, you’ll also find photographers, painters, videographers, illustrators, designers, and musicians making similar arguments.
geofft 7y ago
I'm not a publisher or an author (I'm an SRE, I've never made income from the sale of anything I have copyright from, and I've many times been on the side of fair use as a hobbyist musician) and I'm willing to make that claim. It's as straightforward, IMO, as the claim that not tipping is stealing. Yes, technically, it's merely not giving them money that they expect, it's not taking money they already have. But the practical effect is that it subverts a revenue stream that, for better or worse (definitely worse, in the case of tipping), they rely on, and it was reasonable (legal and socially acceptable) for them to rely on that revenue stream. I'd like to live in a world where authors didn't rely on copyright law for their living. I'd also like to live in a world where waitstaff didn't rely on tips to make minimum wage, let alone a living wage. I don't.
- yesenadam 7y ago
  > I'd also like to live in a world where waitstaff didn't rely on tips to make minimum wage, let alone a living wage. I don't. You do, mostly. I believe it's just the USA where obligatory "tipping" is a thing. I learnt a bit about the history of tipping from Adam Ruins Everything S01E05 Adam Ruins Restaurants, highly recommended. Excerpt about tipping, <4mins: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_vivC7c_1k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_vivC7c_1k (Yes, his style is a lil in-your-face, but the content is excellent, and often shows onscreen the title and author of papers referenced - how many shows do that?!)
  - leephillips 7y ago

jfengel 7y ago

So under ordinary circumstances, when they do their Controlled Digital Lending, for each copy they lend out there's an actual dead-tree book sitting on a shelf somewhere?

btilly 7y ago
Exactly.
- textfiles 7y ago
  Yes, there are a number of warehouses with millions of books in boxes, indexed down to the book (hence the metadata of a book has a physical location in it).
  - sdenton4 7y ago
    I believe there was an only-half-joking plan to drop shipping containers of books to the bottom of the Bay, which would avoid the need to pay for storage on land. (Want to check the book is really there? Here's a snorkel...) Or, in other words, Rai Stone coins, but books. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rai_stones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rai_stones
- ddevault 7y ago
  That is obscene. Screw copyright.
  - pessimizer 7y ago
    I wouldn't call it obscene; having a physical copy is a good backup. Maybe we could say we're allowing digital lending libraries to violate copyrights enough to distribute copies over the internet as long as they contribute to physical conservation as well.
    - marvindanig 7y ago
      yikes, those dead trees mean zero backup or conservation as opposed to distributed storage off of the web. this is a lame miscarriage of a copyright law that is outdated.

phendrenad2 7y ago

Anyone know which authors have opted out? It would be interesting to hear their reasons why in their own words.

mirimir 7y ago
One would hope that there's a notice to that effect, when users attempt to access their works.
mcguire 7y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22731637 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22731637 The linked article mentions Colson Whitehead, Neil Gaiman, and Alexander Chee, and the Twitter threads have other authors, although I didn't recognize any of them.
Zonulet 7y ago
I am an author with three books on there, and I've just emailed them to opt out. One reason authors are fine with libraries lending out their books for free, electronically or otherwise, is that borrowing a library copy is always a little bit less convenient than buying your own – with waits for availability and so on – which gives readers an incentive to pay if they can afford it. Once the library experience is almost indistinguishable from the paid experience, there is no reason for anyone to pay except as a kind of donation to the author. Yes, some generous people will choose to do this, but others won't, and we lose sales. I am a mid-list author. I am not so successful that I will do fine whatever happens, nor am I so unsuccessful that writing is just a weekend hobby for me. Like many authors, writing is my career, but it's on a knife edge, and every sale counts. I've sat for an hour at a signing table just to sell four books, and I would again. I spent five years working on my last book. People complain about 'legacy publishers', but I couldn't have done that without the support of a legacy publisher. Everything that further chips away at my sales reduces the chances that my publisher will be able to support me in the future, and so it reduces the chances that I will be able to put that same time and effort into another book. By 'liberating' the literature of today, these people are strangling the literature of the future.
- 7y ago

dang 7y ago

Recent and related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22716923 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22716923 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22731637 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22731637 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22715009 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22715009 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22681132 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22681132

dvduval 7y ago

There are lots of children still going to school, and there's no simple way for them to obtain books that previously would have been available for free. It is sort of a reading emergency! Now where I live the library system is awesome, and I found the selection was way better than Barnes & Noble. Libraries purchase a lot of books every year and it's no small amount of money. That being said it's also wasteful for many people to buy a book only to read it once. So we need to put more thought into how we can do this so we aren't so wasteful.

wolco 7y ago
Wasteful money wise? Or timewise? Or resources (paper/trees)? I remember re-reading many sections of a book before I understood it. Some get read others never and some re-read.
pergadad 7y ago
Having a home library has many more functions than just storing books you've once read. It's a signaling device; it's a way to show your character:; it's a way to have a possibility to share materials with others; it's a way to show your children your values; it's a reminder of things you've learned; it's soothing for many to have books around; they can be a useful reference or inspiration; ... Books are not just a throwaway product like a daily newspaper - they have many roles to play. I am moving away from kindle for exactly these reasons above; I'm sad I don't have these benefits with the many books I read digitally.
- spodek 7y ago
  I used to think all of that. Then getting rid of my books improved my life more than almost any other act. It took time and a few rounds of culling, but transformed how I looked at possessions and led to reducing much of my other stuff. I wrote it up, hoping it might help someone like I was: https://joshuaspodek.com/less_please https://joshuaspodek.com/less_please.
- SAI_Peregrinus 7y ago
  My home library is mostly of two sorts: reference books I might need (field guides, math/engineering texts, knot books, etc) and books I haven't read yet. After all, who wants a library full of books they've already read? If I particularly like a book and expect I'd re-read it, I'll keep it, but the rest I donate.

Traster 7y ago

You know you're doing well when your uptime beats physical libraries. IA are taking a risk by doing this, but it's very clearly pursuing their charitable mandate.

ineedasername 7y ago
Wouldn't the uptime of any website beat that of physical libraries which (mostly) shutdown for about 1/3 of the day?

mcherm 7y ago

Dear Internet Archive: Not only do I support the measure you have taken and feel that it falls within the bounds of pro-social fair use, but I applaud the measures you have taken that are so important in this extreme time. Furthermore, if any court finds that your action was not appropriate, I will urge my lawmakers to craft a specific exception to copyright law to support the internet archive lending at all times, not just during a national emergency.

egfx 7y ago
But sucks they neglected gifcities. It hasn’t worked for a while https://gifcities.org/?q=dog https://gifcities.org/?q=dog What happened?
- sp332 7y ago
  There's a contact email at the bottom of https://gifcities.org/?about-gifcities https://gifcities.org/?about-gifcities Maybe just ask them?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - egfx 7y ago
    I emailed gifcities and now it’s back up! They are working on making it faster.
tzs 7y ago
> Furthermore, if any court finds that your action was not appropriate, I will urge my lawmakers to craft a specific exception to copyright law to support the internet archive lending at all times, not just during a national emergency. Would there be any limits to your proposed exception? Or could they buy a single copy of a book and lend out as many simultaneous copies as readers asked for?
- thescriptkiddie 7y ago

axguscbklp 7y ago

Given that this is a time of emergency, I think that definitely a good argument can be made for relaxing copyright laws. That said, many commenters on this subject are extending the discussion into a general discussion on the value of copyright, and there I cannot fully agree with the notion that copyright is a bad thing. I pirate stuff too (although I try to limit my piracy) but one difference between me and many other pirates is that I know that I am sometimes hurting people when I pirate. I don't try to console myself with ideological contrivances designed to help me avoid feeling responsibility for causing harm to others.

techsupporter 7y ago
> I pirate stuff too (although I try to limit my piracy)... I’m not sure what you mean here; how do you try? Pirating content instead of paying for it is rather binary: you either paid the requested charge for it and obtained it in line with the mechanism the author or creator used to sell it...or you didn’t. If you have no option to pay because the creator didn’t make one available to you, that’s still piracy, isn’t it? If you respect copyright, and presumably a creator’s ability to make money off of their creations (within time limits, which I firmly believe are way too long in most of the world), I think there’s not much grey in this area. As a wise philosopher once said, there isn’t really a “try” here, in my view. You either paid or you didn’t. So, why not not pirating? Am I off-base?
- jacobwilliamroy 7y ago
  Sometimes digital copies of things just aren't for sale, but I still want them.
- axguscbklp 7y ago
  I agree that pirating vs. not pirating a given item of content is rather binary. What I mean by "I try to limit my piracy" is that I try not to pirate too many distinct items of content.
- chipotle_coyote 7y ago
  I think I get what the OP meant, or at least I have my interpretation of it. I used to be fairly blasé about pirating software, justifying it with the belief that the prices were just too high. I came to believe that was really a pretty weak justification. I went through a somewhat similar change of belief later when it came to video; it's easy to talk yourself into the belief that copying TV shows and movies for free is somehow a strike against big corporations, but unless you're up for entirely reinventing the way our economy works, at the end of the day somebody really does have to pay for those shows and movies to be created, and pirating them is essentially declaring "I want to enjoy this work, I just want somebody else to pay for me doing so." But: There are cases where you might want to give your money to a creator or publisher and you literally can't. Up until a few years ago, no amount of money would have been able to get you the whole series of WKRP in Cincinnati on DVD, especially with the original music, for instance. The soundtrack for The Last Unicorn was never released on CD anywhere but Germany, as far as I can tell, and it's become a rare, expensive collector's item. There are hundreds of TV shows like this, thousands of movies, thousands of records, thousands of novels, thousands of programs -- and I'm probably vastly underestimating each of those categories. Their analog releases, if they were ever made, are long out of print and they were never officially released digitally. And, I'll admit, in those cases I'm perfectly okay with piracy. The rights holder either can't or won't release it, and you can't get it legally. One can argue in such a case you'd have a moral obligation to buy an official release if and when it's made, perhaps, but that may never happen. If what

hilbert42 7y ago

Here we go again, more hair-trigger bitching and whining from The Authors Guild and its ilk. No matter how noble or justified the cause for copying may be, the poor little darlings just can't help themselves. They've been screaming and whinging over being supposedly hard done by with respect to copyright royalties even before that arch villain, bully and saint to copyright owners, Victor Hugo, bulldozed unfair changes to copyright through the 1886 Berne Copyright Convention. …And 'bulldozed' is the right word; for in the early days of the 1880s consumers and end-users of copyright material essentially had no representation at the Berne Convention (as obviously one would expect), thus the power imbalance between authors/copyright holders and consumers/users of copyright material was so one-sided in favor of the former group that if the Berne Convention had been convened today with the same terms of reference as those in 1886 then its deliberations and decisions would likely be deemed to have arrived from corrupt processes. For starters, Berne essentially never touched on matters such as the fact that authors get their ideas, life experience and knowledge mostly from the public domain and that many were even educated or gained their knowledge at public expense, and thus they should have some reciprocal if not moral obligation to the return at least some of their output back into the public domain. Instead, the Berne Convention so favored authors that they had nothing to do to justify or prove their right over the copyright of a work other than the existence of the work itself. That means that the onus always falls on consumers/users of copyrighted works to determine their status (Berne essentially encourages authors to 'double-dip' or take from both sides, it absolves them of having any obligation to anyone but tothemselves). In effect, Hugo and his cronies used shrewdness and cunning to get every damn thing they wished for out of the Berne Convention—they had carte blanche, as there was no effective opposition to their proposals. 'Unfairness' was the order of the day. Trouble is, this mob was so successful at Berne that ever since they've assumed that they've a god-given right to take umbrage and raise utter hell whenever anyone takes the slightest liberties with copyright—even if those actions are lawful. You'll note there's always one theme that perennially underpins their complaints and that's how little the mean income that authors receive from royalties actually is. Well my response to that is if writing etc. brings in so little income then why do they have it as their occupation? Of course, we all know that being an author (with some exceptions) is often more a case of self-aggrandizement and wanting to be immortalized in print forever than it is to inform the world of new ideas through new works. As Cory Doctorow has pointed out, one of the major problems in trying to achieve equitable copyright reform for everyone is—with the exception of authors and rights holders—that so few people are actually interested in the subject. Despite the fact that copyright is an important issue, the lack of widespread expertise in the subject together with the fact that little serious public debate on the matter is taking place are both significant impediments to copyright reform. In the meantime, the whiners will continue to bitch and whinge. I reckon it's best just to ignore them.

buggeroff 7y ago

Shut up, you insufferable prick.

chx 7y ago

Oh cut the bullshit > This means that multiple readers can access a digital book simultaneously So this is just piracy. That's not how book lending works.

eatonphil 7y ago

I'm unfamiliar with their library contents and this thread didn't go into a lot of detail. Their sci-fi section (sorted by most "viewed") includes many classics by authors such as Asimov, Phillip K. Dick, Bradbury, Vonnegut, etc. Looks like a good offering.

robin_reala 7y ago
Interestingly for Philip K. Dick, a lot of his stuff is in the official public domain already, due to a missed copyright renewal: https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/philip-k-dick/short-fiction https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/philip-k-dick/short-fictio...

supernova87a 7y ago

I think the virus situation is exposing the difference in what rules or behavior people / companies think society will put up with, and what people will really put up with / want when push comes to shove. (And, by the way, in so many things, not just this story.)

twomoretime 7y ago
The world has been a cooking timebomb and COVID is a fuse. We're about to see layers of bullshit blown away, and believe me, our society is caked in it - in advertising, in politics, in entertainment, in industry. Nothing feels genuine anymore. Race to the bottom dollar with MBA style, soul sucking optimization throughout. A cleansing fire, perhaps; a deserved reminder that our reality is one of a stone's throw from death. A necessary lesson for an angry but complacent society that has grown fat and weak with comfort and convenience. I struggle to otherwise explain the near total global failure to deal with a pandemic which was evident as early as January.
- FillardMillmore 7y ago
  Are societies in Africa and the Middle East that are dealing with this virus 'fat and weak with comfort and convenience'? Do poor and oppressed people in China hit with this virus deserve this reminder that our reality and existence is fragile? Who says there's been a 'near total global failure to deal' with this pandemic? We're dealing with it right now, and countries around the world are taking drastic steps and decisive action. Perhaps we weren't as prepared as we should've been and I think that case can readily be made, but to think that because you can't explain our lack of preparation, it must mean that this virus and the resulting fallout were 'deserved' or 'necessary' seems pretty cold-hearted in light of all the people affected by this who already were struggling from paycheck to paycheck, just trying to get by and possibly improve their standing in life.
- mrslave 7y ago
  You may be right but nobody cares. People by and large want simple stories, and the story will be "Coronavirus caused all the problems." The same people will be in charge on the other side. They will admit no responsibility for making our societies this fragile in the first place and blame all ills on unforeseen externalities. Rinse and repeat.

sidcool 7y ago

What are some good books to read from the internet archive?

tgsovlerkhgsel 7y ago

Still not answering my most burning question: How does this work with copyright etc.? Do they just ignore it, assuming that doing the right thing in an emergency situation will be made legal later? I'd be really interested in their legal argument/analysis and decision-making (whether it's "the emergency changes what represent fair use", "there are laws that allow extraordinary measures in case of emergencies and we claim it's that", or "screw this paper-pushing bullshit and do what's right"). And regardless of this, I fully support this decision of course.

leephillips 7y ago

This response by the Internet Archive focuses on easily refutable claims, such as that they acquired their books illegally, while sidestepping the one substantive issue: that they had no legal right to replace the controlled digital lending process that they had been following with uncontrolled lending. This is what so many authors and publishers are objecting to; and they are right to point out that this resembles simple piracy.

pawelk 7y ago
Ideally they'd extend the limits of simultaneously lended copies by how many were there in libraries that are now closed, acting as a proxy to the physical copies that are now locked down. But this would take a long time to implement, they'd have to set up a system that gives each library the opportunity to submit their inventory and allow IA to act on the library behalf by lending their books.
toyg 7y ago
It’s not “uncontrolled” - borrowing only lasts two weeks. They say so in the post.
- boomlinde 7y ago
  The sense in which it is uncontrolled is that there is no queue. People can borrow the "same book" simultaneously, where this would normally be limited to the number of copies the library owns.
jka 7y ago
I was curious about your mention of authors and publishers complaining, since I hadn't seen any objections yet. This led me to complaints by The Authors Guild[1] (as detailed in an article by The Guardian[2]) and three other authors mentioned in an NPR article[3]. Since then I've also discovered a statement by the Association of American Publishers[4] linked from the HN submission. Some of the focus is on the revenue that authors make from their publications and some of it is on the legality of making the content more accessible. It is worth reading the original HN submission link, as it contains some useful clarifications around the way the National Emergency Library operates; including, for example, that access to content is on a 2-week loan basis and requires the content to be checked-out from the library The Internet Archive have also updated their National Emergency Library FAQ[5] in response to the debate. It'd be good to discover whether the National Emergency Library ends up increasing awareness and access to publications temporarily, and whether they will collect and distribute any funds after-the-fact based on readership. [1] - https://www.authorsguild.org/industry-advocacy/internet-archives-uncontrolled-digital-lending/ https://www.authorsguild.org/industry-advocacy/internet-arch... [2] - https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/mar/30/internet-archive-accused-of-using-covid-19-as-an-excuse-for-piracy https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/mar/30/internet-archi... [3] - https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=823797545 https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=823797545 [4] - https://publishers.org/news/comment-from-aap-president-and-ceo-maria-pallante-on-the-internet-archives-national-emergency-library/ https://publishers.org/news/comment-from-aap-president-and-c... [5] - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QjErbouWG7pUlzcxPcRk4YEtbYs8ItlVTgLa1DfGh68/edit https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QjErbouWG7pUlzcxPcRk4YEt...

tibbydudeza 7y ago

And how much different is books from movies being streamed on Netflix ???. It is time for the publishing industry and novelists to get with the times and adopt a new model.

Zonulet 7y ago
They tried this, it was called Kindle Unlimited and it turned out to be terrible for most authors.

musicale 7y ago

It is discouraging that so much effort is spent attempting to impose the limitations of printed books onto PDFs.

cycomanic 7y ago

There is an easy solution to this problem. All libraries that are closed world wide report which books they have available at the moment to the Internet archive who then lends it out digitally. Then every lend is backed by a physical copy. I bet the usual suspects would still complain. It is very hard to feel for publishers if one looks at all the shenanigans they do around eBook lending. Libraries tend to pay significantly more than other bulk buyers for the same books and there is a limited number of "lends" on the books for example. https://goodereader.com/blog/e-book-news/here-is-a-breakdown-of-how-much-libraries-pay-for-ebooks-from-publishers https://goodereader.com/blog/e-book-news/here-is-a-breakdown...