Overlooked Lending Library?

[GtrsRGr8]

After some research, I am all but certain that this is the correct forum and subforum for this kind of thing. In fact, I am all but certain that I have seen quite a bit of discussion in this subforum about it. It won't fall under the heading of "deals," but surely it does under the heading of "resources."

"It" refers to the topic of lending libraries. Most of the discussion that I remember seeing in this subforum about it relates to brick-and-mortar libraries, what it takes to get ebook borrowing privileges from them, etc. But, I don't remember the following lending library ever being mentioned (if so, I think that it must have been quite a while back).

I don't remember anyone bringing up the Open Library's lending library, before.

I didn't see a figure for the total number of books in the library; however, it must be huge. I searched for the word "Bible, for example, and got nearly 5,300 hits (keep in mind that individual books may bear quite a few "tags," and, therefore, show up in searches for quite a few different terms; still, I think that this can give you some idea of how many total books that we're talking about). Borrowing appears to be completely _free_.

Open Library calls these ebooks "modern ebooks." Now, I don't know about you, but I don't consider books published in the late 1800's and early 1900's to be "modern books." However, I saw a few of those, especially ones from the early 1900's. By far, though, the great majority of the books do seem to, indeed, be modern--probably on the order of what a typical well-funded brick-and-mortar public library would have in its stacks.

www.openlibrary.org/borrow.

[Dazrin]

I just found out that archive.org has a library. Whether or not this is the same as the openlibrary.org site I am not sure.

They have two options: the public domain version and then a version that uses ADE.
https://archive.org/details/texts
https://archive.org/details/inlibrary

[GeoffR]

That site scans books without the copyright holder's permission, it is up to the copyright holder to send a takedown notice. The authors are not being paid for any borrows. It is really just a pirate site dressed up as a library I think.

From the Authors Guild: An Update on Open Library

The Internet Archive describes Open Library as follows:

“The Internet Archive’s Open Library project will bring four million books online, through purchase or digitization, while honoring the rights of creators and expanding their online reach. Working with U.S. libraries and organizations serving people with print disabilities, Open Libraries can build the online equivalent of a great, modern public library, providing millions of free digital books to billions of people.”

But, contrary to their statement that they are “honoring the rights of creators,” they are not respecting creators’ copyrights. They do not limit Open Library to people with print disabilities. Rather, they are displaying and distributing full-text copies of copyrighted books to the entire world without authorization, in flagrant violation of copyright law.

[GtrsRGr8]

Originally Posted by Dazrin

I just found out that archive.org has a library. Whether or not this is the same as the openlibrary.org site I am not sure.

They have two options: the public domain version and then a version that uses ADE.
https://archive.org/details/texts
https://archive.org/details/inlibrary

I knew that I would run across books on the Internet Archive that were "borrow" only. I would run across them when I did ordinary searches. It seemed like ones that I might be interested in, though, were always "checked out."

Yes, I wondered, too, if there might be some connection between the Archives' and Open Library's. I just don't know the answer; it might take quite a bit of effort to find out, unless one or both have put that information in a readily accessible place.

[GtrsRGr8]

Originally Posted by GeoffR

That site scans books without the copyright holder's permission, it is up to the copyright holder to send a takedown notice. The authors are not being paid for any borrows. It is really just a pirate site dressed up as a library I think.

From the Authors Guild: An Update on Open Library

Thank you for that valuable piece of information.

I had gotten the _impression_ that the Open Library held to the highest ethical standards, etc. However--and I have gone on record saying this--regardless of what the law might say, I think that it should be _the website's_ responsibility to secure _permission_ before posting a copyrighted item, rather than the copyright holder's to ask a website to take it down! There is much more that I'd like to say about this matter, but I'm afraid that if I did, readers would ignore my whole post.

[GtrsRGr8]

Concerning the Internet Archive and the fact (apparently) that they legitimately loan books out . . . . what makes that okay whereas, according to the Authors Guild, at least, what the OpenLibrary does is not?

Is the issue the fact (apparently) that the OpenLibrary scans a book, without the copyrght holder's permission, and/or (again, apparently) will loan out limitless copies of the book at one time? I never did see an "on hold," or anything to that effect, on any of the OpenLibrary's loaners (I admit, I didn't look around all that much on their site) whereas I frequently come across that with the Internet Archives' loaners.

Apparently (again), the IA gets only a few, or maybe just one, copies at a time--probably from the publisher or copyright holder. When that copy, or those copies, is loaned out, one or more people who come along wanting to borrow it/them just have to wait until the copy/copies are returned.

. . . . Which prompts the question: if I own a digital book, am I free to loan it out to someone else, just as I would be with a paper-based book that I owned, as long as I don't retain one or more copies on my computer? I think that it would depend upon the DRM status (unless you used one of the tools that I know that exist out there to break a DRM-Protection on an ebook with it (that's about the limit to what I know about that)) as to whether or not that would even be do-able.

But my main question is, what is/are the difference(s) that make what the OpenLibrary does unacceptable, and the OpenLibrary's unacceptable?

[bgalbrecht]

I think your questions have turned this thread into something more appropriate for the General Discussions forum.

IANAL, so I don't know whether the OpenLibrary is doing anything illegal. I'd like to point out that the Author's Guild basically made the same arguments about Google's book search (e.g., didn't get copyright holders' permission before scanning, etc.), and when the courts ruled it to be fair use, Google didn't need their permission before scanning. In OpenLibrary's case, I think they're claiming they fall under some other exception that libraries have. It could be that IA and OpenLibrary have exceeded the boundaries of whatever exception libraries have.

It's not clear to me whether it is, or should be illegal, for a library to purchase and scan a print book, never loan the print book, and instead, loan a single time-limited copy-protected ebook for each hardcopy edition of the book they own, or for that matter, serially loan either the physical book or ebook, so that only one copy is on loan at a time. It's my impression that this is what OpenLibrary is doing. I'm sure that the Authors Guild's position is that it should be illegal, but that doesn't necessarily make it so.

I'd also like to point out that here in the US, copyright has a rationale for copyright in the Constitution as “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries”, whereas in other countries, most notably in Europe, copyright is viewed as some sort of moral right of the author and so it may be that in the US, what OpenLibrary is doing is perfectly legal and ethical, yet not at all legal or ethical in some or all of the EU.

[GtrsRGr8]

Originally Posted by GeoffR

That site scans books without the copyright holder's permission, it is up to the copyright holder to send a takedown notice. The authors are not being paid for any borrows. It is really just a pirate site dressed up as a library I think.

From the Authors Guild: An Update on Open Library

Wikipedia's entry for the Open Library seems to be positive, or at least non-critical:
Open Library is an online project intended to create "one web page for every book ever published". Created by Aaron Swartz[4][5], Brewster Kahle,[6] Alexis Rossi[7], Anand Chitipothu[7], and Rebecca Malamud[7], Open Library is a project of the non-profit Internet Archive and has been funded in part by a grant from the California State Library and the Kahle/Austin Foundation.

Open Library
OpenLibrarypage.jpg
Open Library homepage in September 2011
Type of site
Digital library index
Available in
English
Revenue
donation
Website
openlibrary.org
Alexa rank
Positive decrease 16,427 (April 2014)[1]
Commercial
no
Registration
free
Launched
2006; 12 years ago
Current status
Active
Content license
data: public domain[2]
source code: AGPLv3[3]
It provides access to many public domain and out-of-print books, which can be read online.

However, I suppose that the editors (writers) are required to maintain a neutral position--like the writers for ordinary dictionaries--Random House, Merriam-Webster, _et al._ are required to.

I am not a "published author," but I can sympathize with authors. They've done a lot of hard, tedious work to produce a book, and even articles, essays, _et al._ They should be fully compensated for their works, skill, and talents, just as people in other occupations should be.