BREAKING: đŚInternetArchive supporters are planning a digital rally 3/20 in support of the digital rights of libraries at https://www.battleforlibraries.com/
That's when a judge will hear oral arguments in big publishers' suit to end the ability of libraries to own+preserve digital books.
There are many reasons that millions of people love đŚInternetArchive, and the time to show that love is coming on Mondayâas they stand up to say that digital books matter as much as paper books.
4 million of their own digital books are at stake!
It's time to demand #DigitalRightsForLibrariesâsign the pledge, join the online rally by posting or changing your profile pic, and share why the #InternetArchive is important to you.
Take action and spread the word at http://BattleForLibraries.com
And if you'd like to tune in on Monday to track what's going down in court, our friends at đŚlibrary_futures are organizing an event!
QT library_futures: We're going live for the Oral Arguments in Hachette v Internet Archive on March 20 at 1PM w/a panel of experts Michelle Wu đŚDigLibCopyright đŚKyleKCourtney ! Liveblog and Zoom discussion moderated by đŚlittle_wow
https://forms.gle/ATuwmiNDNPUBovZm9
Join a panel of experts on https://controlleddigitallending.org/2023/03/20/hachette-v-ia-liveblog/ and on Zoom to discuss the Hachette v Internet Archive case! To listen, Dial-in: 888-363-4749, with access code 8140049. We'll email the links to the liveblog and the live discussion after when you sign up!
@team Sorry, Internet Archives was in the wrong here. You can't just copy and distribute copyrighted works without compensation. There are legal ways for libraries to make ebooks available. What IA wanted to do was stealing from authors and publishers, and anyone who appreciates books should stand with the creators here.
(And note that while large publishing companies are the ones who can afford to bring this suit, small publishers and authors with less reach are also impacted.)
@erikalyn @team To my understanding, they use the same technology "legitimate" ebook lending libraries use. Downloads are DRMed and after 14 days will no longer open.
The link you posted claims that an unlimited number of people can borrow a book at a time. That's not true.
To verify that, I just created a new account on archive.org and "borrowed" a book with my regular account. When I went to the same book from my new account, it did not allow me to borrow it - it offered me to "join the waitlist".
So how does this hurt authors or publishers any differently to a physical library?
I'm curious what actually happens after 14 days, if you want to come back and let me know. When I borrow a library book, as you say, I can't open it anymore after the lending period expires, but I haven't tested that for IA. My impression is that it works differently because they are not true ebooks, but scanned images. The DRM the archive uses just makes it harder to copy (is my understanding). But regardless, they don't have a legal right to make that copy or to distribute it.
@erikalyn @team They scan and OCR the books - they are true ebooks.
The download can only be opened in a compliant ebook reader (Adobe Digital Editions or an LCP reader - https://www.edrlab.org/readium-lcp/certified-apps-servers/). I had to create an Adobe account to open it.
They have a right to distribute the physical copy. Why shouldn't they be able to distribute that one physical copy they paid for digitally, the same way they would have physically? I'm still not seeing how this could hurt authors or publishers.
Because it's illegal to copy and distribute copyrighted work without permission. That's the law. Owning one physical copy doesn't give someone the right to make additional copies, whether digitally or on a xerox machine, for passing around. If the courts somehow decided this was okay, they would be making it okay for anyone who owns a copy of a book to make and distribute copies without compensating the author or publisher. And yes, that would hurt authors and publishers.
@erikalyn @team No one is saying it should be OK to make as many additional copies as you want and pass them around. I agree, that would hurt authors and publishers.
The IA wants to be allowed to convert the one physical copy of the book that they compensated the author/publisher for into one digital copy of that book.
Ebooks have different pricing. They did not pay for that digital copy, so it can't be in circulation.
But what if the courts did say that was legal, so all libraries started doing it? Would a library put a physical book in storage for every ebook they offered digitally, or would keep loaning both out simultaneously? The first wouldn't make sense, and the second would be a huge revenue loss for the book industry, since libraries currently pay licensing fees for ebook lending.
@erikalyn @team Whether itâs allowed to be or not, the fact is itâs in circulation.
a huge revenue loss for the book industry, since libraries currently pay licensing fees for ebook lending
Yes, thatâs exactly the point - libraries currently have to licence ebooks - per year! - often for far higher prices than a single physical copy! Essentially, moving over to the X-aaS model. I donât see that as a loss for the book industry. Whatâs the cost to the book industry each year?!
Libraries should be able to buy one copy of a book and lend out that copy - that was the entire intention of libraries in the first place.
Would a library put a physical book in storage for every ebook they offered digitally, or would keep loaning both out simultaneously? The first wouldnât make sense [âŚ]
I agree. That wouldnât make sense, but what choice do they have? (I guess they could destroy the originals, also not a particularly good idea).
They certainly couldnât loan out both simultaneously.
Ebook licensing is priced according to how many ebook copies can be checked out at once and to account for the fact that they would never wear out and need to replaced like a physical copy. It can seem high, but it's how publishers cover their costs when people/libraries aren't buying as many books because ebooks are easy to borrow.
Note that book prices don't just cover printing, but the labor of writing, editing, proofing, design, etc. If they can't cover those costs in sales, they can't afford to make new books.
At any rate, what we're talking about isn't allowed under current law, it's just some procedures that IA made up. To change, the laws would need to be rewritten to make sure those rules are fair and balance access with compensation in a way that takes everything into account.
@erikalyn @team So set the prices accordingly. Do these prices really sound at all fair to you?
All those costs are one off costs. They donât justify yearly licensing.
[âŚ] what weâre talking about isnât allowed under current law
As long as it can be argued that the books are currently not available âfor a fair priceâ, it sounds like this is 100% legal under US law - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/108
[âŚ] itâs just some procedures that IA made up. [âŚ]
No, theyâre following the procedures set out in the law I linked to above.
@erikalyn @team Almost double the price of a physical book per year for one ebook which can be checked to one person at a time? That just feels extortionate to me.
If we were talking about a one off fee of double the price, even triple the price, that would be one thing. Especially if that could have multiple copies checked out at a time.
There's reasonable debate to be had about the cost of ebook licensing. I just think there's a lot of ground between what they charge now and nothing. I worked for a small publisher for 7 years so I know how difficult that industry is. So there are competing interests. I do need to leave now, but thanks for having the discussion.
Fight for the Future
Eva Chanda
Erika Wittekind
ideclon
TaxiCabColeđłâđ