Archive.org, Google and Piracy

[Quoth]

I'd noticed that Archive.org has a lot of Google scanned PDFs and that Google assumes anything is Orphaned and fair game for them, unless told otherwise. Also Google scans complete copyright works to feed their search.

Now this

inside, a cactus
@ZumieYaravosky
Replying to
@textfiles
you are putting the onus on thousands of authors to search for and request their work to be taken down? Why not have an opt-in system where people can volunteer books upfront? The entire model feels like a scam, I am shocked your organization is considered non-profit.

from Twitter https://twitter.com/textfiles/status...70785882644484
https://nwu.org/book-division/cdl/faq/
http://blog.archive.org/2020/03/30/i...gency-library/

I appreciate the service that Archive.org provides in "saving" copies of vanished websites. AKA "Wayback Machine".

They seem too much inclined to Google's attitude to scanning copyright works and not just archiving dead websites, but providing copies of copyright works, beyond webpages, with no remuneration to those selling them.

Also from time to time a book, comic, song, video or program might be distributed "free of charge" by the copyright holder or publisher. That doesn't put it in the Public Domain, nor does it give ANYONE the right to redistribute it.

No author or publisher should have to search to opt out of anything.

In a related issue:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/0...undup_2902320/

"Folks covered by the EU’s GDPR, the California Consumer Privacy Act, and similar laws, can ask Clearview – the controversial face-recognition startup that scraped three billion images of people from the internet – to reveal what images it may have of you in its database and delete them."
Really that's crazy. They should be fined by EU and California and forced to delete all of them. Most people impacted will never have heard of Clearview.
No-one should have to provide extra personal details to opt out, nor even ask to opt out.

[stumped]

This will likely fan the flames of the what's fair debate
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/0...gency_library/
I have already seen reports that copyright owners are outraged....

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by stumped

This will likely fan the flames of the what's fair debate
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/0...gency_library/
I have already seen reports that copyright owners are outraged....

Thank You!

I noticed the "open library" at Archive , org some time ago and wondered how it was run.
I hadn't realised it was just blatant copyright violation, far beyond what Google was allowed, which actually was bought. Why does Google need to scan an entire copyright work to produce a web snippet? I think we can all work out why. Also the "snippet" is disingenuous as tests show that Google has OCRed entire copyright text and will respond to ANY unique text in the book. The results often come higher than sellers of the book.

We stopped selling via Google Books/Playstore because we were unhappy about how Google did the preview (with Amazon and Smashwords it's a percentage from the start).

I'm just wondering is there some connection between Google and the Internet Archive?

[pwalker8]

There is some history there. Google was involved in a project where they were scanning in all works at various libraries. The author's guide got outraged and sued, and it ended up in court. If I remember correctly, the outcome was that Google scanning was considered fair use, but they couldn't make the complete work available without the author's consent.

This wiki page gives a more or less reasonable summary of what happened.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Books

[fjtorres]

The google case was because google was creating a searchable database of books to provide snippets and links to legal sources of the full book.

The Author's sued and they ended up with a settlement that was rejected by the judge because the AG was "negotiating" on behalf of unknown/non-consenting writers. A decade later, after a bunch of appeals and rulings that stripped out extraneous stuff including the whole orphan works mess , the case came back to basics: the database of scanned books that google wasn't publishing, just quoting snippets.

And that was ruled fair use.

The Internet archive is working off a different case and stretching it further than Ralph Dibny can reach.

Long trail of articles at tbe Digital Reader Blog among other places:

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

Authors have discovered that the Internet Archive has converted its lending library site into an out and out pirate site, and they are not happy,

Authors Protest Internet Archive Pirating Their Books Piracy

For the past few years the Internet Archive has been operating a site called The Open Library. This site fills some of the role of a public library by lending scanned copies of print books.

The site existed in a quasi-legal state, protected by a legal opinion that kept it from being explicitly labeled a pirate site, but that legal fig leaf was stripped away this past week when The Open Library director Chris Freeland announced that the Internet Archive would now start "lending" ebooks without limits.

To address our unprecedented global and immediate need for access to reading and research materials, as of today, March 24, 2020, the Internet Archive will suspend waitlists for the 1.4 million (and growing) books in our lending library by creating a National Emergency Library to serve the nation’s displaced learners. This suspension will run through June 30, 2020, or the end of the US national emergency, whichever is later.

During the waitlist suspension, users will be able to borrow books from the National Emergency Library without joining a waitlist, ensuring that students will have access to assigned readings and library materials that the Internet Archive has digitized for the remainder of the US academic calendar, and that people who cannot physically access their local libraries because of closure or self-quarantine can continue to read and thrive during this time of crisis, keeping themselves and others safe.

What they are calling the National Emergency Library is really just The Open Library with a new name, and new legal issues.

The problem with this is that The Open Library's only protection was an untested legal opinion called Controlled Digital Lending. Go read it and you will see that it says said that a library could lend one scanned copy of a print book for each copy they had in their archive. This is great - in principle - because it means libraries can preserve their copies of old and rare print books and instead lend digital copies.

CDL is a great idea, in my opinion, because it helps solve the orphan works problem. I do not however agree with how the Internet Archive has latched on to it as a justification for lending books that are widely available in stores and libraries.

But that does not matter today. In removing waitlists, the Internet Archive is discarding CDL as a defense, and is lending far more copies of each book than they have the rights for.

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


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

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

https://the-digital-reader.com/2020/...g-their-books/

The unconstested fact is they lend out copyrighted books without agreement by the owners of the copyright. The've floated a variety of excuses over time but since they are small and there is no $$$$ involved, they get a lot of finger pointing but no lawsuits. Which cost money to pursue.

[barryem]

As I understand it the Open Library is basing it's actions on a legal precedent that allows them to lend a single scan at a time of any book they own in paper form. It's been a while since I read it so I don't recall the exact details but they are basing what they're doing on existing law.

There are groups that are protesting and there are some lawsuits to determine if what they're doing really fits that law. Those cases are pending and until they're decided it's simply wrong to call their actions piracy. The law that they're basing it on does exist.

Now with the Corona virus they've taken an additional step of lending unlimited copies of those books. My guess is that won't be found to be legal but at the same time we're in the kind of situation that seems to justify it and my guess, and it's only that, is that they've decided they're willing to take a hit if that's found to be unlawful, which it probably will be. I applaud their courage in doing this.

During non-Corona virus times Archive.org is NOT a pirate site. They're a legitimate organization that does good work. Maybe that argument is different now. I'm not a lawyer so I don't really know. But the courts will decide that and I think we should avoid name calling till they do.

Barry

[deleted]

I've been using archive.org for (maybe) two decades. Using TheWayBackMAchine (which is awesome) and downloading bootlegged music concerts. More recently I saw some Tarkovsky movies on the site - they were Criterion collection if I remember correctly - and at that time I did wonder about the situation of copyright (previously I'd always assumed they were doing things by the book).

The early days of my using that resource predated Google mass-scanning project. Perhaps Google's activity stretched the bounds of what was "acceptable".

But what's the issue at hand right now? They've made their library open access? And... the library contains books that have somehow been scoured from the internet, judging that their free-access somewhere online means they're effectively free everywhere (in much the same way that non copy-writed content is.

Originally Posted by Quoth

Why does Google need to scan an entire copyright work to produce a web snippet? I think we can all work out why.

I haven't been following this issue. What's the "why"? In the future, they have can position themselves to replace publishing houses?

[SteveEisenberg]

Here’s their defense:

https://blog.archive.org/2020/03/30/...gency-library/

Right now, today, there are 650 million books that tax-paying citizens have paid to access that are sitting on shelves in closed libraries, inaccessible to them. And that’s just in public libraries.

And so, to meet this unprecedented need at a scale never before seen, we suspended waitlists on our lending collection. As we anticipated, critics including the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers have released statements (here and here) condemning the National Emergency Library and the Internet Archive. Both statements contain falsehoods that are being spread widely online. To counter the misinformation, we are addressing the most egregious points here and have also updated our FAQs.

[tubemonkey]

Internet Archive’s National Emergency Library Harms Authors

The Authors Guild is definitely not pleased with this new development. Piracy is still piracy no matter how the Internet Archive cloaks it.

The Authors Guild is appalled by the Internet Archive’s (IA) announcement that it is now making millions of in-copyright books freely available online without restriction on its Open Library site under the guise of a National Emergency Library. IA has no rights whatsoever to these books, much less to give them away indiscriminately without consent of the publisher or author. We are shocked that the Internet Archive would use the Covid-19 epidemic as an excuse to push copyright law further out to the edges, and in doing so, harm authors, many of whom are already struggling.

With mean writing incomes of only $20,300 a year prior to the crisis, authors, like others, are now struggling all the more—from cancelled book tours and loss of freelance work, income supplementing jobs, and speaking engagements. And now they are supposed to swallow this new pill, which robs them of their rights to introduce their books to digital formats as many hundreds of midlist authors do when their books go out of print, and which all but guarantees that author incomes and publisher revenues will decline even further.

IA is using a global crisis to advance a copyright ideology that violates current federal law and hurts most authors. It has misrepresented the nature and legality of the project through a deceptive publicity campaign. Despite giving off the impression that it is expanding access to older and public domain books, a large proportion of the books on Open Library are in fact recent in-copyright books that publishers and authors rely on for critical revenue. Acting as a piracy site—of which there already are too many—the Internet Archive tramples on authors’ rights by giving away their books to the world.

Last year, the Authors Guild and authors sent hundreds of takedown notices to IA and protested the inclusion of their books in the Open Library program. Now, during this pandemic that has severely disrupted authors’ lives and choked the publishing industry, IA once again is undermining authors’ ability to make a living and decide who gets access to their copywritten material.

more...

[stumped]

a poll would be interesting but I have no idea how to create one.

I am with the Internet Archive on this: a temp fix to help with lockdowns trumps copyright. ( as most libraries and bookstores have been force-closed anyway)

"Right now, today, there are 650 million books that tax-paying citizens have paid to access that are sitting on shelves in closed libraries, inaccessible to them. And that’s just in public libraries."

but TBF, I don't write books for a living.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by barryem

During non-Corona virus times Archive.org is NOT a pirate site.

Yes, they are.
It is clear that there is no legal justification for what they are doing.
Whether someone is breaking the law or not does not depend on whether you like them.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by stumped

a poll would be interesting but I have no idea how to create one.

I am with the Internet Archive on this: a temp fix to help with lockdowns trumps copyright. ( as most libraries and bookstores have been force-closed anyway)
but TBF, I don't write books for a living.

They started this before the Corona pandemic.
There are PLENTY of Public Domain books.

This is a cynical attempt to use the crisis to attack copyright.
Yes, Copyright terms have got too long.
Yes, publishers are failing in not using POD for paper and better supporting ebooks.
Yes, DRM is evil.

The Internet Archive has no right (moral or legal) to ignore copyright (and some of these titles are in Print). A pandemic doesn't give anyone the right to make such decisions. They are not paying royalties nor purchasing licences or copies.

Even a government hasn't the right to abrogate copyright of living authors, though they do have the right to invalidate spurious patents and trademarks, even then it's normal to have a judicial process.

We are not in some post apocalyptic setting where authors and publishers no longer have rights.

They are NOW offering to take down ANY title if an author or publisher complains, as a reaction to the criticism. That's not good enough. They should take down ALL works in copyright and only put up works where the rights holder agrees.

What sort of arrogance is it that THEY should decide what Intellectual Property is given away free. This isn't a library.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by stumped

a poll would be interesting but I have no idea how to create one.

A popularity contest on their actions is meaningless. Of course most people support paid stuff being free.
That's why we elect governments and have courts and legal systems in most countries. Even in Switzerland which has referendums the government can cancel the result on the grounds that it's immoral, stupid, self harm to country, illegal etc.

Copyright needs reformed. DRM needs to be abolished and be illegal. Destroying copyright entirely would certainly win a poll, but how then do creative people get paid?

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by deleted

I
But what's the issue at hand right now? They've made their library open access? And... the library contains books that have somehow been scoured from the internet, judging that their free-access somewhere online means they're effectively free everywhere (in much the same way that non copy-writed content is.

They themselves have been scanning books since about 2000. They started this years ago as Open Library. Some content is scanned by Google and some is uploads.
They are now using the excuse of the Pandemic to publicize what they where already doing, a PDF lending system for copyright and in print titles without paying a cent in royalties or purchasing a library licence.

Also the fact that someone else is offering a pirated copy certainly doesn't excuse anyone else doing it.

This goes far beyond their brilliant service of archiving and preserving websites. This is a deliberate and long planned attack on copyright existing at all.
I absolutely abhor that big US corporations have got copyright extended and deployed DRM to remove fair use and control customers. Neither addresses piracy. Copyright terms should be shorter, not increased periodically. Between 25 and 50 years after author's life with return of all rights to Author or author's estate if the publisher has sold no copies in 10 years. DRM should be illegal.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Copyright needs reformed. DRM needs to be abolished and be illegal. Destroying copyright entirely would certainly win a poll, but how then do creative people get paid?

I doubt that abolishing copyright would win a poll on MobileRead. But why wonder? Here we go!