When Is a Library Not a Library
February 18, 2021
I love libraries. I understood how the Dewey Decimal classification system worked before I started first grade. I learned more from things I was exposed to via libraries than I ever did in any school (including college).
As an author, I love libraries even more. They buy books, often in multiple formats/copies. They sponsor and host community events to expose individual and multiple authors to the public. Many libraries have programs to encourage and support writers such as open mics, workshops, and critique groups. Some libraries have programs to bring local authors' books to the attention of their acquisitions staff.
I would be delighted to see my books offered for library patrons to check out. (Unfortunately, the distribution systems available to indie authors do not allow erotica so you can check out 50 shades of garbage, but not books about kink and/or Domination/submission written by someone who's actually participated in it. But that's another blog post.)
The Internet Archive's so-called "Open Library" is not a library. It's a pirate site.
Most professional writers' groups consider the "Open Library" operations to be massive copyright violations not library lending.
Libraries buy the copies of the books they lend to patrons. When they acquire e-books from major publishers they pay more than the retail price (I do not approve of this policy, but it is the reality libraries have to live with and budget for).
The "Open Library", on the other hand, scans print books without authors' permission, violating authors' copyright, and then makes those -- in some cases almost unreadable -- pirated book scans available to the public. Unlike e-lending from your public library, "Open Library" is not serving up licensed, paid-for copies, which are no longer available on your device when your lending period ends. Instead, the pirated "Open Library" scans are saved on users’ devices and can be made readable -- allowing further pirating -- by stripping DRM protection. Authors receive zero compensation for their work.
Brewster Kahle reportedly founded the Internet Archive as a way to keep a historical record of the Internet for the benefit of sociological and cultural researchers. While a useful tool to those researchers, the archive is a problem for website owners and developers who might rather not have their older, less professional-looking work -- or perhaps content that was replaced to eliminate racist, misogynist, transphobic, etc. language -- on display.
Regardless, the argument can be made that the usefulness of the Internet Archive outweighs such considerations. And, because the sites are presented with no alterations, in the same venue/format they were originally available, it would be more difficult to prove whether or not any copyrights are violated.
However, in 2011 Kahle decided to release more than 80,000 e-books via the "Open Library". These books are not in the same format which he acquired (but did not purchase) them. The copyrights of many of those books still belonged to the authors. They had not yet executed their e-books rights, only because e-books weren't a thing when the books were first published. Many of those authors were beginning the process of either self-publishing their e-books or negotiating with publishers for publication. Either of those processes would have put money in the authors' pockets, compensating them for their creative efforts.
Instead, Kahle stole their electronic rights by illegally scanning print books and circulating un-proofed scans, often with hundreds of errors. (When a reader has a bad experience with a book, they don't blame the publisher or the distributor, or even the thief. They blame the author.) Some of those books were in the public domain and the release of electronic versions of those books could be considered a benefit to current and future generations of e-book readers. But the rights to many of those books had not yet reverted to the public domain. Their copyrights still belonged to the authors who were not asked for (and did not give) permission for the scans.
Disclosure, the first edition of my most popular novel, Dommemoir, was stolen as an "out of print" book even though the second edition was, and is, available for purchase, costing me significant sales.
I was not the only author whose rights were stolen by Kahle. Victoria Strauss, an author who also contributes to and manages correspondence for the Writer Beware® website reported "numerous books in the Open Library collection are recently published, in-copyright, and commercially available", including four of her own, in February of 2018.
Then in 2020, abandoning all pretense of managing a library and ignoring the massive efforts of public libraries across the country to make more digital materials available for patrons, Kahle used the pandemic as an excuse to make unlimited copies of stolen works available, calling it the "National Emergency Library" and eliminating any differentiation between the "Open Library" and any other pirate site.
Why am I writing about this now? Because, in a recent Twitter conversation about supporting local journalists, someone brought up the concept of contributing to and using the Internet Archive. I ended up informing multiple people ways in which the "Open Library" is not at all the same as public libraries. (Also TBH, although grateful I do have heat I'm worried about being able to pay my heating bill in a few weeks.)
One journalist who has repeatedly (legitimately) complained about having their videos stolen and repurposed, refused to understand how authors might not appreciate having their books stolen and repurposed. They essentially said that as a journalist they should be compensated for their own work, but fiction authors should give theirs away.
The journalist claimed that Portland libraries have an "e-library" system that functions almost identically to the Open Library, ignoring the fact that public libraries pay for the e-books they lend out. (In fact, as stated above, they actually pay more for those e-books than if an individual bought it from a bookstore.) The archive just steals books and violates authors' copyright.
I was even blocked by one person "for being so wrong about libraries", despite making the differences between the so-called "Open Library" and public libraries clear. I have and will always support and love libraries. I wish they could/would share my books with their patrons. But, Kahle's project never was and never will be a library, no matter how he tries to frame his pirate site.
An incomplete time line of the "Open Library":
As an author, I love libraries even more. They buy books, often in multiple formats/copies. They sponsor and host community events to expose individual and multiple authors to the public. Many libraries have programs to encourage and support writers such as open mics, workshops, and critique groups. Some libraries have programs to bring local authors' books to the attention of their acquisitions staff.
I would be delighted to see my books offered for library patrons to check out. (Unfortunately, the distribution systems available to indie authors do not allow erotica so you can check out 50 shades of garbage, but not books about kink and/or Domination/submission written by someone who's actually participated in it. But that's another blog post.)
The Internet Archive's so-called "Open Library" is not a library. It's a pirate site.
Most professional writers' groups consider the "Open Library" operations to be massive copyright violations not library lending.
Libraries buy the copies of the books they lend to patrons. When they acquire e-books from major publishers they pay more than the retail price (I do not approve of this policy, but it is the reality libraries have to live with and budget for).
The "Open Library", on the other hand, scans print books without authors' permission, violating authors' copyright, and then makes those -- in some cases almost unreadable -- pirated book scans available to the public. Unlike e-lending from your public library, "Open Library" is not serving up licensed, paid-for copies, which are no longer available on your device when your lending period ends. Instead, the pirated "Open Library" scans are saved on users’ devices and can be made readable -- allowing further pirating -- by stripping DRM protection. Authors receive zero compensation for their work.
Brewster Kahle reportedly founded the Internet Archive as a way to keep a historical record of the Internet for the benefit of sociological and cultural researchers. While a useful tool to those researchers, the archive is a problem for website owners and developers who might rather not have their older, less professional-looking work -- or perhaps content that was replaced to eliminate racist, misogynist, transphobic, etc. language -- on display.
Regardless, the argument can be made that the usefulness of the Internet Archive outweighs such considerations. And, because the sites are presented with no alterations, in the same venue/format they were originally available, it would be more difficult to prove whether or not any copyrights are violated.
However, in 2011 Kahle decided to release more than 80,000 e-books via the "Open Library". These books are not in the same format which he acquired (but did not purchase) them. The copyrights of many of those books still belonged to the authors. They had not yet executed their e-books rights, only because e-books weren't a thing when the books were first published. Many of those authors were beginning the process of either self-publishing their e-books or negotiating with publishers for publication. Either of those processes would have put money in the authors' pockets, compensating them for their creative efforts.
Instead, Kahle stole their electronic rights by illegally scanning print books and circulating un-proofed scans, often with hundreds of errors. (When a reader has a bad experience with a book, they don't blame the publisher or the distributor, or even the thief. They blame the author.) Some of those books were in the public domain and the release of electronic versions of those books could be considered a benefit to current and future generations of e-book readers. But the rights to many of those books had not yet reverted to the public domain. Their copyrights still belonged to the authors who were not asked for (and did not give) permission for the scans.
Disclosure, the first edition of my most popular novel, Dommemoir, was stolen as an "out of print" book even though the second edition was, and is, available for purchase, costing me significant sales.
I was not the only author whose rights were stolen by Kahle. Victoria Strauss, an author who also contributes to and manages correspondence for the Writer Beware® website reported "numerous books in the Open Library collection are recently published, in-copyright, and commercially available", including four of her own, in February of 2018.
Then in 2020, abandoning all pretense of managing a library and ignoring the massive efforts of public libraries across the country to make more digital materials available for patrons, Kahle used the pandemic as an excuse to make unlimited copies of stolen works available, calling it the "National Emergency Library" and eliminating any differentiation between the "Open Library" and any other pirate site.
Why am I writing about this now? Because, in a recent Twitter conversation about supporting local journalists, someone brought up the concept of contributing to and using the Internet Archive. I ended up informing multiple people ways in which the "Open Library" is not at all the same as public libraries. (Also TBH, although grateful I do have heat I'm worried about being able to pay my heating bill in a few weeks.)
One journalist who has repeatedly (legitimately) complained about having their videos stolen and repurposed, refused to understand how authors might not appreciate having their books stolen and repurposed. They essentially said that as a journalist they should be compensated for their own work, but fiction authors should give theirs away.
The journalist claimed that Portland libraries have an "e-library" system that functions almost identically to the Open Library, ignoring the fact that public libraries pay for the e-books they lend out. (In fact, as stated above, they actually pay more for those e-books than if an individual bought it from a bookstore.) The archive just steals books and violates authors' copyright.
I was even blocked by one person "for being so wrong about libraries", despite making the differences between the so-called "Open Library" and public libraries clear. I have and will always support and love libraries. I wish they could/would share my books with their patrons. But, Kahle's project never was and never will be a library, no matter how he tries to frame his pirate site.
An incomplete time line of the "Open Library":
- In February 2013, the National Writers Union joined with "36 other national and International organizations of authors, journalists, translators, illustrators, photographers, graphic artists, literary agents, book publishers, and administrators of reproduction rights and public lending rights" to "denounce the scanning and distribution of complete copies of hundreds of thousands of books by the Internet Archive and its library 'partners' on the basis of the flawed legal theory of 'Controlled Digital Lending' (CDL). ... The copyright infringement inherent in CDL is not a victimless crime. As the victims of CDL, we want librarians, archivists, and readers to understand how they are harming the authors of the books they love by participating in CDL projects, even if they have the best of intentions."
- In July of 2013, TeleRead Editor Chris Meadows warned that Internet Archive’s Open Library is violating authors’ copyrights.
- In January of 2018, the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America issued a copyright infringement alert about the Internet Archive "world’s largest ongoing project of unremunerated digital distribution of entire in-copyright books".
- In September of 2018, the Internet Archive Policy Counsel led a group that retroactively invented an invalid legal theory, unsupported in copyright law, called Controlled Digital Lending to justify the outrageous theft of thousands of authors' hard work and started rejecting notices sent authors asking for unauthorized digital copies of their books to be taken down.
- In March of 2020, The Authors Guild announced it was "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." As it noted, "with median 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."
- Also in March of 2020, Victoria Strauss wrote on Writer Beware® "What this boils down to, under all the high-flying verbiage: the IA is ditching the one-user-at-a-time restriction that is one of the key justifications for the theory of controlled digital lending, and allowing unlimited numbers of users to access any digitized book in its collection."
- In April of 2020, SFWA published Infringement Alert warning "using the Coronavirus pandemic as an excuse, the Archive has created the “National Emergency Library” and removed virtually all controls from the digital copies so that they can be viewed and downloaded by an unlimited number of readers. The uncontrolled distribution of copyrighted material is an additional blow to authors who are already facing long-term disruption of their income because of the pandemic. Uncontrolled Digital Lending lacks any legal argument or justification."
- In June of 2020 four major publishers sued the Internet Archive over unauthorized book scanning.