Where did all the free books go?

This sounds like essentially a blog article, where the writer renders his opinion that their practice of digitizing and loaning digitized books is legally problematic. This is a subset of all the content they are processing, and it sounds like there's not even widespread consensus this practice is problematic. Anyway, he makes the point in the article itself that there hasn't been a ruckus raised about it yet even by the people you'd expect to, the Author's Guild that reacted so much to the original Google books digitizing project.

This doesn't convince me that archive.org is a piracy site. Only that there is some disagreement by the blogger (and perhaps, his affiliated organization??) about the legality of this novel approach of digitizing and loaning modern ebooks, which are a small subset of their collection. He freely admits that most of their content is not problematic, if I understand him correctly.

[murraypaul]

The Authors Guild

“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.

Society of Authors

The Internet Archive is a San Francisco–based nonprofit digital library of millions of free books, movies, software, music, websites, and more. It seeks donations of hard-copy books from libraries and individuals and then scans, digitises, and offers them for lending and downloading without paying royalties or PLR.

According to our sister organisation the Authors Guild of America, while they have been doing this for some time they have recently posted a large quantity of scanned books (including works still in copyright) on their Open Library website.

Anyone can log-in, from anywhere in the world, search for and click on a book to 'check it out' for a period of two weeks. Although the site mimics regular library lending in that only one person can check out a book at a time, once checked out, the full text of the books can be easily downloaded; the site even provides download buttons to make it easy.

We did some spot-checking. Each author who was checked found that one or more of their in-copyright books were available in the Open Library for download.

Australian Society of Authors

The ASA is deeply concerned by the practices of the Internet Archive's Open Library, which scans physical books and then makes those scanned copies freely available for lending to users all around the world, including Australia. By undertaking this activity without either seeking permission or providing fair payment to the creators, Open Library is undermining copyright law, legitimate ebooks sales and standard library practices.

The Guardian Newspaper (UK)

The Society of Authors (SoA) is threatening legal action against the Internet Archive unless it stops what the writers’ body claimed is the unauthorised lending of books unlawfully scanned for its Open Library.

Ruckus appears to have been raised.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by GeoffR

I don't know how many, far too many for me to count.

In this 2013 Teleread article a figure was given of 250,000 ebooks in archive.org's modern ebooks collection with only about 100 that had the publisher's permission to be there. So that is 99.96% without permission. The numbers have grown a lot since then.

The Internet Archive’s Open Library is violating authors’ copyrights

It was more or less ignored for years but not anymore.

https://teleread.org/2017/12/19/the-...s-guild-warns/

https://the-digital-reader.com/2018/...ecides-piracy/

https://the-digital-reader.com/2018/...works-defense/

https://accrispin.blogspot.com/2018/...gement-by.html

https://the-digital-reader.com/2018/...-dmca-notices/

It's been in the news repeatedly this year:

https://publishingperspectives.com/2...ty-of-authors/

https://the-digital-reader.com/2019/...-open-library/

They are claiming that owning a print copy allows them to lend out a digital copy, one at a time, and daring anybody to sue.

https://controlleddigitallending.org/statement

Somebody will.
And soon.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by maximus83

This doesn't convince me that archive.org is a piracy site. Only that there is some disagreement by the blogger (and perhaps, his affiliated organization??) about the legality of this novel approach of digitizing and loaning modern ebooks, which are a small subset of their collection. He freely admits that most of their content is not problematic, if I understand him correctly.

It's not a pirate site, but it is a site that contains a huge number of pirated books, due to their policy of permitted unregulated uploads. I'd strongly suggest checking the legality of material found there before downloading. It's an extremely valuable resource: always my "go to" site to locate scanned copies of out of copyright books.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's not a pirate site, but it is a site that contains a huge number of pirated books, due to their policy of permitted unregulated uploads. I'd strongly suggest checking the legality of material found there before downloading. It's an extremely valuable resource: always my "go to" site to locate scanned copies of out of copyright books.

Here in the US, the google case basically said that it's legal to scan in the books, but not legal to make those books available in whole, you can make small portions available.

One of the catch phrases for the internet is "making all knowledge available at your fingertip". The technology exists to make that happen, but the legal framework still doesn't exist. I would argue that there would be a lot of public good to have a site where one can download any book. The mechanism for paying the copyright holder would have to be worked out, but there are already similar mechanisms in the US for commercial use of music. Heck, one can even have a clause allowing people to opt out (but opting out would greatly reduce the length of the copyright). Won't happen, of course, but it would be a tremendous public good.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Here in the US, the google case basically said that it's legal to scan in the books, but not legal to make those books available in whole, you can make small portions available.

We're talking slightly at cross-purposes.

There are (at least) three different types of books at archive.org.

1. Scans of public domain books, which are perfectly legal.
2. Copies of copyrighted books which can be loaned. This is what the disputes mentioned previously are concerning.
3. Unregulated uploads of books by third parties. This is where the pirated material is.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

We're talking slightly at cross-purposes.

There are (at least) three different types of books at archive.org.

1. Scans of public domain books, which are perfectly legal.
2. Copies of copyrighted books which can be loaned. This is what the disputes mentioned previously are concerning.
3. Unregulated uploads of books by third parties. This is where the pirated material is.

Correct.

Use case number 2 is what the ruckus is over. The IA assert fair use allows them to create and lend out one ebook copy for every physical copy they own.
Authors and publishers disagree.

They are not necessarily wrong: fair use doctrine is meant to cover limited uses for personal, educational, or critical use.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

Creating derivative products is mostly limited to parodies and ebooks are understood to be a separate and distinct product from a print book, requiring explicit licenses from the creator.

Random House tried and failed to argue in court that a contract to publish in print implied a license to produce ebooks and audiobooks. If publishers and libraries need distinct licenses to distribute ebooks so should the IA. I wouldn't expect them to prevail.

Originally Posted by HarryT

We're talking slightly at cross-purposes.

There are (at least) three different types of books at archive.org.

1. Scans of public domain books, which are perfectly legal.
2. Copies of copyrighted books which can be loaned. This is what the disputes mentioned previously are concerning.
3. Unregulated uploads of books by third parties. This is where the pirated material is.

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Correct.

Use case number 2 is what the ruckus is over. The IA assert fair use allows them to create and lend out one ebook copy for every physical copy they own.
Authors and publishers disagree.

They are not necessarily wrong: fair use doctrine is meant to cover limited uses for personal, educational, or critical use.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

Good we're back to my point :-): archive.org is not a piracy site, and people should use it.

I believe that items (2) and (3) in this list were (unintentionally) being conflated by folks earlier. Archive.org is NOT a piracy site, any more than Amazon or Google are piracy sites just because occasionally somebody manages to upload some illicit pirated (category 3) stuff into their bookstores. In fact, Amazon has a problem with illegal knock-offs of various retail products making it into their store (I have firsthand knowledge of illegal copies of US branded knives being made by China and sold as the authentic item on their store, for example). Still, preventing this 100% is like asking Amazon to filter the entire ocean for pollution--it can't be done at 100%, when you operate at their scale. I don't hear anyone in the thread (yet, anyway) suggesting we should label Amazon a piracy site and boycott them.

If the discussion above is all about category (2), that is NOT the same thing as piracy, and it appears has not even been legally challenged yet, although they've been doing this for years. Remember the facts of the case: archive.org is a non-profit, buying one copy of a book and digitizing it, then loaning it to one person at a time. To meet their goal of using the web to make information globally and freely available. And the author is still getting paid. I have no problem with that UNLESS there is eventually a legal ruling against them on that issue. In that case, of course the books should come down. Unless or until that legal ambiguity is resolved, I don't feel it's fair to conflate that issue with 'piracy' and use it to label their whole effort and site. Those guys are doing God's work, they're the closest thing avialable to a library-for-all on the Internet.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by maximus83

If the discussion above is all about category (2), that is NOT the same thing as piracy, and it appears has not even been legally challenged yet, although they've been doing this for years. Remember the facts of the case: archive.org is a non-profit, buying one copy of a book and digitizing it, then loaning it to one person at a time. To meet their goal of using the web to make information globally and freely available. And the author is still getting paid. I have no problem with that UNLESS there is eventually a legal ruling against them on that issue. In that case, of course the books should come down. Unless or until that legal ambiguity is resolved, I don't feel it's fair to conflate that issue with 'piracy' and use it to label their whole effort and site. Those guys are doing God's work, they're the closest thing avialable to a library-for-all on the Internet.

Piracy is piracy, even if you like the people doing it.
They are creating and distributing copies of copyright works without the permission of the copyright holder. That is what piracy is.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Piracy is piracy, even if you like the people doing it.
They are creating and distributing copies of copyright works without the permission of the copyright holder. That is what piracy is.

Exactly.
No license.

The Random House vs Rosetta lawsuit is very telling because the Court found RH did not explicitly list ebooks as a format they were licensing the content for. Thus that license remained with the author. RH was arguing for an implied ebook license derived from the pbook license.

There is also the (obvious) understanding that when you buy a physical book (or CD, DVD, whatever) you buy the object (hence the first sale rule) but not the content (hence the long-standing prohibition of reproduction via photocopy, etc).

Call it piracy, call it whatever: plain fact is they have no license to create an ebook edition much less lend it out. And they need need that license: if the publisher that paid for the rights to the print edition needs an explicit license to create an ebook, surely IA can't conjure one up of nothing.

(EXPECTO LICENTIA?!)

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by HarryT

We're talking slightly at cross-purposes.

There are (at least) three different types of books at archive.org.

1. Scans of public domain books, which are perfectly legal.
2. Copies of copyrighted books which can be loaned. This is what the disputes mentioned previously are concerning.
3. Unregulated uploads of books by third parties. This is where the pirated material is.

2 is what I was referencing. It's legal to scan. Making those scans available to someone who already has physical copy is the questionable piece. Contrary to the ftoreses post, it's not the same legal point as the idea that a publisher has both the right to sell the ebook and the physical book if the ebook is not explicitly mentioned. This idea is that you have the right to format shift, and thus has the right to download the scan from someone else. I kind of doubt the idea will be upheld if it goes to court, on the other hand, I can understand why no one has taken them to court as well.

The secondary point that I was making was a reference to the original purpose of the google scan project.

Note that the California State Library system provided some funding for the archive.org Open Library project, recognizing that it was for the common good. I doubt they would fund something they believed was an inherently illegal piracy project.

Here's an interesting older article with some helpful background about the project, written back when it was just getting going:
https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/...g-program.html

Clearly it's a thorny issue, and a larger one faced not just by archive.org but also by any library that lends ebooks. How do you fulfill on a non-profit library's mission to curate and provide information at low/no cost for everybody, while still ensuring that authors/publishers are paid for their intellectual property? I like that Open Library is trying to push the boundaries of that discussion. This industry NEEDS to be pushed, IMO, like the music industry of old that exercised way too much control over distribution. If it turns out that their approach has to be clarified in a legal decision--for example, saying they have to move to a pay-per-usage-licensing model like a lot of bricks and mortar libraries do for ebooks--then so be it. It'll clarify things, cost them more money, and slow down their distribution. But I don't accept that their intent, or their practice as an organization, is to pirate content or deprive authors of their intellectual property.

ETA: Look at this perfect example of the trade-off issues between access versus control of distribution.
https://www.boston.com/news/technolo...to-lend-ebooks

The Mass state libraries are trying to increase access, using the advantages of digital content because they can keep a few centralized copies. And they're intentionally trying to push the boundaries: "'Our intended purpose is to change the playing field and to increase the availability of content to Massachusetts libraries,’ MLS president Gregory Pronevitz says."

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by maximus83

How do you fulfill on a non-profit library's mission to curate and provide information at low/no cost for everybody, while still ensuring that authors/publishers are paid for their intellectual property?

By maximizing use of PD and Creative Commons works and paying for reasonable licenses for copyrighted material, the way public libraries operate. This mess is an unnecessary distraction that needs to be settled quickly: It's not really hard to figure out that things that are tolerable when done by one person privately are unacceptable when done en-masse and openly.

Instead of justifying rogue operations like this, the conversation should really be about the library-hostile licensing terms of some publishers.

[pondscum]

Right, the Internet Archive/Open Library project wasn't some sort of fly-by-night operation; they had major backers and funding and would have had lawyers on board with the idea that your right to do anything you want with a paper book once you've bought it includes scanning it and lending it out, not just lending it out in paper form.

IMO, it's pretty clearly in the public interest for libraries to be able to archive e-books and make them available for lending at little or no cost. And it's in the interest of publishers and writers, too. How many paper books have I checked out of the library that introduced me to new authors and genres and books I subsequently bought by the dozens? How many kids developed a lifelong love of reading from being able to check out any book they wanted for free from a library?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by pondscum

Right, the Internet Archive/Open Library project wasn't some sort of fly-by-night operation; they had major backers and funding and would have had lawyers on board with the idea that your right to do anything you want with a paper book once you've bought it includes scanning it and lending it out, not just lending it out in paper form.

IMO, it's pretty clearly in the public interest for libraries to be able to archive e-books and make them available for lending at little or no cost. And it's in the interest of publishers and writers, too. How many paper books have I checked out of the library that introduced me to new authors and genres and books I subsequently bought by the dozens? How many kids developed a lifelong love of reading from being able to check out any book they wanted for free from a library?

For the most part, the way one pushes the envelope legally in the US is to force a lawsuit. I don't think that this sort of thing is outrageous or a slam dunk in either direction. There are a lot of gray areas under fair use in the United States. US law is different that the rest of world with regards to copyright and when they passed the enabling legislation for the Berne Convention, they decided to leave fair use in play, even though it's not really something the rest of the world recognizes.