Describing Public Domain Works As 'Pirated' And 'Illegal' Is Bad For Everyone
from the stop-that dept
Yahoo Tech has an interesting column about an "art project" in Germany, where a bunch of folks are printing out 250,000 academic papers from JSTOR, which they're describing as the JSTOR Pirate Headquarters. Of course, as I'm sure you know, JSTOR -- the somewhat controversial organization that hosts thousands of academic articles behind a massively high paywall -- was a central player in the Aaron Swartz saga.It was JSTOR's collection that Aaron was caught downloading, though it was never entirely clear what he was going to do with it. Soon after Aaron's arrest, a guy by the name of Greg Maxwell got some attention by releasing 33GB of JSTOR scientific papers to the Pirate Bay. While he'd considered doing so before, he had held off out of concern for how JSTOR might react. But the simple fact was that all of the papers he released were public domain papers, meaning that JSTOR would have no right to complain. In fact, a few months later, JSTOR itself agreed to make all its public domain materials free. JSTOR freely admits that Maxwell's decision influenced the move, but that they had been planning to do something like this anyway.
So, back to Germany and the "JSTOR Pirate Headquarters." As the Yahoo story notes, the folks there were inspired by the Swartz story to try to create some sort of civil disobedience act, with the initial plan being to print out the documents Swartz downloaded -- but, of course, that database has long since gone away. Instead, they found Maxwell's torrent, and decided to print that out. The problem is that throughout the story, everyone seems to pretend that this is some sort of illegal act of piracy. Beyond the fact that they call it the JSTOR Pirate Headquarters, the article by Rob Walker opens this way:
For several days now, five printers in Düsseldorf, Germany, have been pumping out illegally-downloaded articles from JSTOR, the digital library of academic journals.Except they're not illegally downloaded. They're public domain, which makes them perfectly legal to download.
Then Walker claims:
If you’re in the area, you can stop by and browse this stuff – which would cost you something like $353,229 to buy from JSTOR itself.Except that's not true either, because JSTOR made the same documents free.
And it appears the guy behind the project doesn't realize this either:
The JSTOR Pirate Headquarters, then, exists partly as a tribute to Swartz, and partly as a provocation, explains its overseer, the artist and poet Kenneth Goldsmith. The material being printed consists of “arcane scientific papers that are hundreds of years out of copyright,” he tells me via email. “Yet JSTOR is firewalling & profiting from this stuff, which should be available to everyone at no cost.”Again, those works have already been freed, legally, both by Maxwell and by JSTOR. So while this protest may have some symbolic value, to claim that these works are locked up and that this is some sort of illegal activity is just wrong. Later in the article, they discuss the possibility that JSTOR might do something:
There has been, to date, no word from JSTOR. And realistically, this mass of paper is not a material threat to its business — even if it does make material an argument about the nature of that business.Except, not only is this not a material threat to its business, it's not a threat to anything. These works are all completely legal, in the public domain and totally freely available from a variety of sources including JSTOR. Here, go ahead and check it out.
“The legal issue is interesting. Is printing material without the intent to distribute it really illegal?” Goldsmith asks. “Is this useless intellectual property really worth going to the mat for?
That's not to say there aren't other issues with JSTOR. Its regular paywall is ridiculously high, and often stands in the way of sharing important academic knowledge (frequently paid for by the public). And there are plenty of non-public domain works JSTOR should consider freeing up as well -- such as this 80 year old article on why we should do away with copyright and patent laws altogether. It's 21 pages and JSTOR wants $43 for it, which seems rather ironic, since the author himself, Arnold Plant, believes that locking up such works with intellectual property is a mistake.
So, I can recognize the desire to do something that appears to be civil disobedience to stand up against JSTOR. But the JSTOR Pirate Headquarters, unfortunately, only contributes misinformation to the situation, implying that freely available public domain works are somehow illegal or subversive. It appears this is the opposite of the message they want to send, so it's unfortunate that the message that is getting out is that it's illegal to share public domain works. Similarly, shame on Yahoo Tech and its reporter, who should be willing to do the most basic of fact checking to understand the very premise of the article is hogwash. Yahoo Tech is trying to position itself as a tech publication for a more mainstream audience, and if it believes the way to do that is to spread misinformation, that's unfortunate.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: aaron swartz, copyright, germany, greg maxwell, public domain
Companies: jstor
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
A correction that corrects nothing
"CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that the papers had been illegally-downloaded."
A technical correction that allows the author to continue to mislead his readers.
Maybe he's prepping for a job w/ a US Intel agency.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Oops they were. going to do that anyway
TL;DR Yahoo reporter and artists wrong - Yahoo me no like - JSTOR pull CYA on release of PD Docs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Conflation
To copyright holders (or at least the organizations that ostensibly represent them), there is no distinction between "unauthorized" and "infringing." An unauthorized copy is a pirated copy, regardless of whether that copy is in the public domain, is not copyrightable (e.g. purely factual), covered by fair use, etc.
What copyright holders don't (or won't) recognize is that by conflating these uses with piracy, they're only making "piracy" look better to the public. This project is a perfect example.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
New movie: Rebel Without A Clue
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That erroneous mindset can be seen in a recent Cracked article about how plays written in England in the 1800s received no copyright protection in the United States.
The article specifically states that it was not illegal to perform those plays in the US, because they were not covered by any copyright law in the US. However, despite it being perfectly legal to perform those plays, the Cracked article goes on to claim as fact that it was piracy to perform those plays in the US. It's simply bizarre. There was no piracy going on!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Non-illegal robbery
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Non-illegal robbery
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Illegally downloaded public domain papers
Sorry, but that's rubbish. The legality of downloading something is perfectly up to the discretion of the person providing the downloading service. If there is any form of access control, circumventing the access control is illegimately accessing that service and its bandwidth.
It's perfectly irrelevant whether the content is copyrighted or computer-generated or public domain for that.
The copyright status of the content merely determines whether the service provider was licensed to make the content available in the first place, and it determines what you are allowed to do with the content once you have a copy of it in your hands.
As a more tangible example: a bookstore may be selling printed copies of public domain works. It cannot prohibit you from creating copies of those works once you have purchased them, and redistributing such copies on your own.
But you still can't walk in the shop and just take all the books with public domain content that you like.
The book store is perfectly allowed to slap any price on the books it wants to.
Similar with JSTOR. They can provide copies of public domain content for any price they want to. Once you paid the price, they cannot prevent you from creating and distributing your own copies from those copies you created legitimately. But it's up to them to decide what you have to pay for providing access to a copy from their servers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Illegally downloaded public domain papers
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Illegally downloaded public domain papers
The model falls apart and they KNEW they were in the wrong but did not do anything untill somebody called thgem out in it. Then it is all, its all open and free now, we were planning to do this all along.
It reeks like a week old fish wrapped in Prenda papers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Illegally downloaded public domain papers
I repeat: the copyright situation of software or books in no way impacts my right to offer access to legitimate content under any conditions I want. If I want $100US for you to receive a copy of Shakespeare's MacBeth from me, that's perfectly legitimate. You are free to take your business elsewhere, and you are free to copy and redistribute the work of Shakespeare once you receive a copy from me or anybody else.
But my server is tangible, and the money I pay for bandwidth is tangible, and it's my decision what I ask for access to content distributed via my server. The public domain status of some content determines what you can do with it once you legitimately received a copy. But it does not give you the right to receive a copy in the first place. You have to ask someone for a copy first. And he can say "no" perfectly well even if we are talking about public domain works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Illegally downloaded public domain papers
But that last sentence does not make sense either. It would appear that Maxwell downloaded the respective articles from JSTOR legally since he had presumably received them via some legitimate JSTOR access program, possibly by paying for them individually or under a bulk arrangement. And since they were in the public domain, it was then perfectly legal for him to upload them then to a torrent site of his choice, and for other people to download them from there according to the torrent site's usage conditions.
It is the permission to upload rather than download that is rendered legal by the Public Domain status of the papers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Non-illegal robbery
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Compare to Berkeley Historical Society
Interview with Tom Edwards, former president of the Berkeley Historical Society -
Invest some time, money and effort in developing a tighter one-time use agreement for sharing your photos. We thought it was satisfactory, but we know more now, and have tightened it up.
- - - - - - -
http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/files/BHS-OneTimeUseAgreement.doc
Images for Personal...
I agree that I shall...
(2) not publish, sell, copy, distribute, share, or otherwise exploit the Image(s)...
Images for Publication, Commercial, or Any Other Purpose...
(3) I shall not sell, sub-lease, donate or share the Image(s) in any fashion...
(6) I shall destroy or return any copies of the Image(s) provided by electronic media by the date specified below...
Disclaimers...
I agree to assume all responsibility and any liability for copyright infringement...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Illegally downloaded public domain papers
- The artists did not download the documents from JSTORE. They got them from The Pirate Bay (or, more accurately, from the swarm of users who connected to the torrent that was linked to on The Pirate Bay). So, yes, the documents were perfectly legal to download.
- The person who created the torrent (Greg Maxwell) got the documents from JSTORE, but he procured them legally through his legitimate access to that service. (The article puts scare quotes around "procured legally," though nobody has ever claimed that they were not.)
- Even if he did not, illegitimately accessing a service is not piracy. It may be a breach of contract (or worse), but it is not a violation of copyright law.
So, no, nothing that anyone did in this case amounts to piracy in any way, shape, or form.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Illegally downloaded public domain papers
It also appears that nobody including JSTOR claimed that Maxwell was doing anything problematic by uploading it to a torrent.
The downloaders were protesting the establishment in a manner similar to publicly vandalizing a car they bought before.
It looks superficially like a protest, but then it's up to you to interpret it. But if done right, it could give others ideas that are more troublesome. Does not look much like it, though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Illegally downloaded public domain papers
What? So, if I offer a service where I allow people to download the new Captain America movie, that's legal? If someone offers a restricted copy of Night Of The Living Dead, they can suddenly prosecute anyone downloading it for free? No.
"But you still can't walk in the shop and just take all the books with public domain content that you like."
No, because you're not just taking the work that's in the book, you're taking a new physical object that's not available for free. Totally different. You can still go and download the TEXT from Gutenberg for free, but you can't take that particular instance because it consists of more than just text and the non-text components are not public domain. Get it?
If you're going to offer an argument, at least ground it in the real world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Illegally downloaded public domain papers
JSTOR makes that content freely available for download.
Go to http://www.jstor.org/action/showAdvancedSearch (no need to login) and check "Include only content I can access". Search anything and download public domain papers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Illegally downloaded public domain papers
If that copy is of something that is in the pubic domain, then copyright law does not regulate what one can do with it - even if it is not a "legitimate" copy.
Since those documents are in the public domain, Maxwell could not possibly have violated copyright law, even if he did not get them from JSTOR legitimately, and/or did not have permission from JSTOR to make them available on The Pirate Bay. Were that the case, he may have been in breach of contract with JSTOR, but not of copyright law.
But no matter what, once Maxwell (or anyone else) put them on The Pirate Bay, anyone could download the documents, and the downloaders would break absolutely no law by doing so. They would break no law even if Maxwell violated his contract with JSTOR in order to get the documents. The people who get the documents from The Pirate Bay don't have a contract with JSTOR, so they didn't break any law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Describing unauthorized copies
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Conflation
That really was the best L---- could do, bless his li'l heart. The **AAs have yet to introduce that as an argument; I expect it to happen sooner or later.
Refusing to use their words and re-framing their arguments so they're factual gets the ball back into our court. Who's with me?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Non-illegal robbery
Taxation is the price we pay for living in a civilized society. Without it, we'd be dependent on private enterprise for everything. And private enterprise only ever works for profit. No profit, no service.
It's not the other way around.
Now try to imagine enforcing your rights in a court of law you could donate to, i.e. not funded by taxpayers. Unless you are as rich as the person(s) you're fighting, good luck with that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Conflation
I get your point. Unfortunately, it comes from the term "consumer" - which is an economic term, widely-understood, and unlikely to change.
It would probably be better to use the term "user" of the content, in the same sense as a software user, since that's closer to the truth. I doubt that the term will catch on, though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]