Let Readers Read
blog.archive.org
blog.archive.org
Mek here, program lead for OpenLibrary.org at the Internet Archive.
Over the last several months, readers have felt the devastating impact of more than 500,000 books being removed from the Internet Archive's lending library, as a result of Hachette v. Internet Archive https://help.archive.org/help/why-are-so-many-books-listed-a...
In less than two weeks, on June 28th, the courts will hear the oral argument for the Internet Archive's appeal.
What's at stake is the fundamental ability for library patrons to continue borrowing and reading the books the Internet Archive owns, like any other library.
Please consider signing the Open Letter to urge publishers to restore access to the 500,000 books they’ve caused to be removed from the Internet Archive’s lending library and let readers read.
Let us make this wretched world worth it.
I think the 1 hour loan available for so many books on IA feels pretty similar to standing in a bookstore and reading for a little while. You get an idea if the book is worth your time and if you really like it you'll probably want to buy it somewhere that you can easily annotate it and maybe even pass it on to the friend.
when this happens, it signifigantly raises the bar for authors and producers to deliver a desired quality rather than a spiffy promotional campaign for a pulp piece.
Of course in today's reality we have largely anonymous book stores, "bestseller" lists that are systematically manipulated, and publishers that lower their standards in the face of competition from self-publishing (both with cheaper book printing and online publishing). But providing books that are worth your time still seems to be one of the large selling-points of publishers.
I would like to remind the public of:
# An attorney says she saw her library reading habits reflected in mobile ads. That's not supposed to happen
https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/18/mystery_of_the_target...
Getting out too far ahead of your message is a constant challenge in advocacy.
(And FWIW, I strongly endorse the IA, and AFAICT your own viewpoint here.)
No. The lawsuit was about CDL as a whole, and there's plenty of evidence showing publishers were preparing for it even without the COVID emergency library. If the lawsuit was just over the emergency library, I doubt IA would still be fighting.
I'm just a nerd. I'm not involved with ebook publishing. But I know for a fact that I'm the 1%. 99% of the people can't use a computer as well as I'm able to. So this is my 1%. And when my 1% creates a digital version of a product that is inferior to the physical version of the product, and then tells the 99% it's the better way but it turns out they just didn't consider everything, and they don't even seem to care, and it just keeps making things worse for a lot of people, I just feel embarrassed. It wasn't supposed to be like this. It was supposed to be a total victory, better in every conceivable way. If it's not for the smell and texture of paper, then I don't want to hear "but physical books are better because..." This isn't even a complicated technology. It's just text.
How can an industry that can't figure out how to make a book digital handle something like artificial intelligence?
There are plenty of other groups with deeper pockets and bigger institutional backing that preserve and share books. Let someone else fight this battle.
As does Adobe, Amazon… There's no need for me to go through the list alphabetically. There's fundamentally no such thing as a technological protection measure, not in a world where the compact digital camera exists.
This is basically how checking out ebooks from my "regular" library works. Not only is the DRM relatively easy to remove (even for non-technical users), returning the books is also on the honor system (to wit: on a Kindle, you retain access to books indefinitely so long as you're in airplane mode; on a Kobo, so long as you keep the book open and avoid returning to the home screen; these tricks are both easily discovered and, IME, routinely shared among people with ereaders). It's possible IA should've avoided poking the bear by removing these nominal restrictions during the pandemic, but framing their normal operation as substantially different from that of more traditional libraries is rather disingenuous.
2. "Poking the bear by removing these nominal restrictions" is the "branding" I was talking about. Their "emergency library" was a pirate site, plain and simple. You can describe it as a procedural difference from what they were doing before, but that doesn't stop it from being piracy.
Vacuous labels. A library provides access to texts; the idea of lending single texts serially just comes from the physical restrictions of physical books, which loses meaning with the electronic format.
A library lends books. There is little difference if the queue is respected when such queue is artificial.
The modalities of accession had a form with the physical book, and may lose meaning with current new formats (there is no natural exclusive access to a single token). So, labelling "piracy" simultaneous access may easily be just vacuous technicality.
Can you direct me to a book available to borrow in the IA, which both requires copyright protection, and is available to download as a DRM-free PDF? My understanding is that no such book currently exists, nor did it exist in the pre-pandemic regime.
> "Poking the bear by removing these nominal restrictions" is the "branding" I was talking about. Their "emergency library" was a pirate site, plain and simple. You can describe it as a procedural difference from what they were doing before, but that doesn't stop it from being piracy.
I don't think there's any great contradiction in the ideas that a) the barriers the IA had prior to the pandemic (and still has, to my knowledge) against piracy are perfunctory and largely ineffective, b) they are the same barriers that any US-based library with an ebook rental program uses, and c) even slightly weakening those barriers caused the IA to be de facto facilitating piracy in a legal sense, regardless of their intentions.
It is not. The judge ruled the CDL, their original system, was illegal, and the only mention of the period where they removed the limits was saying basically "as controlled digital lending was already illegal, the pandemic actions were also illegal."
The emergency library made them legally vulnerable over that act, this lawsuit is not about that act.
According to the plaintiffs and the judge who agreed with them, controlled digital lending was always illegal and they always had grounds to sue. So it did not make them "legally vulnerable."
I could see it argued that it made them "rhetorically vulnerable" and that's why the publishers took this particular moment to sue, but your statement is in contradiction with the plaintiffs and judge.
They're never ever going to allow something like the doctrine of first sale to happen again. That's why you can't have an regular library with ebooks. The publishers will not settle for anything less than charging libraries per-read and requiring negotiation for every title offered. The old library model doesn't maximize shareholder value for the publisher. Also to blame is our elected representatives who could legislate a better system for the people, but are too beholden to corporate interests to ever do so.
No, IA was not sued before the "emergency library" because OpenLibrary treated physical books like physical books. OpenLibrary had been around for years before 2020.[0]
>They're never ever going to allow something like the doctrine of first sale to happen again.
Ah yes, the oft-touted warning that "they" (meaning publishers) hate the first sale doctrine and somehow will magically abolish it.[1] The principle that one you own something tangible, you can do whatever you want with it (sell it, lend it, gift it, destroy it) is a longstanding one, with books being only one application. Lending libraries predate the concept of a free public library and, yet, publishers somehow did not go around to every paid library and mechanics' institute demanding a cut of membership fees.
>That's why you can't have an regular library with ebooks.
I said "tangible" above for a reason. I don't have a good answer for how and whether to treat ebooks differently, but am not convinced that the only right and proper one is to treat them exactly the same way as physical books.
>The publishers will not settle for anything less than charging libraries per-read and requiring negotiation for every title offered.
But this has not been the case in practice. Amazon and other retailers sell ebooks with permanent licenses.[2] Libraries use both CloudLibrary's per-borrow model and Overdrive as providers; while I prefer the latter as a Kindle e-paper reader, there is an argument to be made for either approach from a logistical perspective. In my experience Overdrive has the largest market share, so libraries seem to prefer its approach.[3]
[0] I'm quite certain that my IA/OL account is older than yours.
[1] As amazing as it may seem, publishing companies' employees also grew up borrowing books at the library.
[2] Yes, I know about the 1984 example
[3] And before you say "Overdrive books shouldn't expire after 52 borrows!", that seems like a reasonable compromise given that ebooks don't fall apart after repeated use the way pretty much any physical book would after that many borrows. Again, paid-for ebooks from Amazon and elsewhere don't expire.
Which is perhaps part of the point. As a start, first sale doctrine should apply to ebooks, as should the format shifting exemption (both for libraries and for individuals), and DRM circumvention should be explicitly legalized for non-infringing purposes.