HarperCollins Wants To Limit Library Ebook Lending To 'Protect' Authors From Libraries

from the can-i-check-out-a-clue? dept

Colin was the first of a bunch of you to send in the news that publisher HarperCollins has bizarrely decided to cripple the ebooks they let libraries lend by adding a clause in their contract that says books can only be lent out 26 times before the license "expires." Why? Because they can, apparently, and don't realize how this will simply piss off people. Also, once again, I do wonder how supporters of a move like this can still claim that a digital copy of content is "just like" a physical copy. HarperCollins could never make such a claim with a physical book.

Where it gets really ridiculous is HarperCollins' "defense" of the move:

HarperCollins is committed to the library channel. We believe this change balances the value libraries get from our titles with the need to protect our authors and ensure a presence in public libraries and the communities they serve for years to come.

Yes, seriously. They think they need to protect authors from libraries. That's -- to put it frankly -- insane. It seriously makes me question whether authors should be comfortable with HarperCollins as a publisher, when it seems to be making moves that clearly go against an author's best interest. The article does note that two of the big publishers -- Macmillan and Simon & Schuster -- don't allow any lending of ebooks, which is unquestionably worse. However, this kind of move doesn't make HarperCollins look good or like it has any recognition of the digital world. It should be a major turn off to authors who do recognize where the market is headed.

Filed Under: ebooks, libraries, protection
Companies: harpercollins

Brazilian Librarians: Copyright Is A Fear-Based Reaction To Open Access To Knowledge

from the say-that-one-again dept

David Weinberger recently had an interesting blog post about his attendance at a conference of Brazilian university librarians, where he was very encouraged to learn of the many ways in which the librarians are embracing the internet to improve access to knowledge, and are hoping this leads to much greater things. Not surprisingly, questions on copyright came up, and Weinberger notes that many he spoke to are quite worried about how copyright is holding back access to knowledge:

The question of copyright seems to weigh heavily on just about everyone's mind. (Keep in mind, of course, the self-selection of those with whom I have talked.) Copyright is only perceived as an obstacle if you are intent on maximizing access to the works of human intellect and creativity. If you are afraid of what open access means, then copyright looks like a bulwark. But, if you are confident that we together -- with the invaluable aid of librarians, among others -- can overall steer ourselves right, then the current copyright regime looks like a fear-based reaction.

I think that encapsulates a number of important points. Historically, if you look at copyright, it has almost always been exactly that: a fear-based reaction to something new -- some new technology or innovation that helped spread knowledge in a way that potentially removed barriers from a gate-keeper. And, the deeper you look, you quickly realize that almost every single one of those "fear-based reactions" was massively overhyped and had little basis in evidence, fact or reality. And yet... the laws that were passed based on fear stick around. No one ever goes back and says "hey, we passed this law because we believed the fearful claims of industry X, but it appears those fears were unfounded."

It's good to see that folks in Brazil are taking this seriously, however. We recently noted that Brazil is considering new copyright laws now, with some surprising characteristics, such as penalties for those who inhibit fair use or the public domain. It's nice to see at least one country looking to move away from fear-based reactions when creating copyright laws.

Filed Under: brazil, copyright, knowledge, librarians, libraries, open access

Librarians Violating Netflix Terms Of Service To Better Serve Patrons

from the gotta-go-with-the-librarians-here... dept

Rose M. Welch was the first of a few of you to send in the news that librarians have realized that Netflix is a great way to expand the catalog of DVDs that can be loaned out, even though it violates Netflix's terms of service. Netflix seems a bit ambivalent about the whole thing, saying that they don't like it, and they would expect librarians would obey the terms of service (which this does not), but that they really don't want to sue libraries -- perhaps recognizing how awful that would look from a PR standpoint. While I applaud Netflix not going straight to the lawyers, is it really that big of a deal that libraries are using Netflix in this manner?

Filed Under: dvds, libraries, sharing, terms of service
Companies: netflix

Libraries Worried About Potential Supreme Court Ruling Concerning Legality Of Selling Imported Omega Watches

from the greymarket-libraries dept

Earlier this year we discussed an important upcoming Supreme Court case between Omega (the watch company) and Costco over whether or not it can be considered copyright infringement to resell legally purchased watches that were bought overseas. The concept sounds crazy, right? What does reselling foreign watches have to do with copyright? Well, the details are a bit complicated, but basically lots of companies hate the concept of first sale rights (the ability to resell something you've legally bought) and have tried all sorts of tricks to try and block those rights. In this case, Omega inscribed a tiny globe on the back of its watches (where no one will ever see it) solely for the purpose of copyrighting that design and using it to try to stop resale. Of course, once again, the first sale doctrine does allow for resale, but here's where Omega got sneaky. It pointed out that the first sale doctrine technically only applies to copies that are "lawfully made under this title." Omega's argument is that because the copyrighted globe design was made outside of the US, the copy was not made under US law... and thus (voila!) there are no first sale rights on any copyrighted product made outside of the US.

Amazingly, the court agreed. Even more amazing? The Obama administration argues that the court decided correctly, in part because the recent ProIP Act (which gave us our friendly IP Czar) ever so slightly changed the rules on importing and exporting copyrighted goods... removing first sale rights from foreign goods.

The implications, if this is true, are immensely problematic. A coalition of libraries has now filed a detailed amicus brief in the case (pdf) noting what a massive problem it would be if the lower court ruling is upheld:

Over 200 million books in U.S. libraries have foreign publishers. Moreover, many books published by U.S. publishers were actually manufactured by printers in other countries. Although some books indicate on their copyright page where they were printed, many do not. Libraries, therefore, have no way of knowing whether these books comply with the Ninth Circuit's rule. Without the certainty of the protection of the first sale doctrine, librarians will have to confront the difficult policy decision of whether to continue to circulate these materials in their collections in the face of potential copyright infringement liability. For future acquisitions, libraries would be able to adjust to the Ninth Circuit's narrowing of Section 109(a) only by bearing the significant cost of obtaining a "lending license" whenever they acquired a copy that was not clearly manufactured in the United States.

How ridiculous is it that copyright law -- which was originally put in place "for the encouragement of learning," might now make it much more difficult to encourage learning through libraries.

Now, some will obviously state that this is a problem for Congress, not the courts, to fix. And, to some extent that is true. But the Supreme Court is also supposed to make sure that the laws that Congress has put in place are interpreted in line with the Constitution. In this case, copyright law is being so abused as to clearly have nothing to do with its intended purpose, and thus the court can and should note that this interpretation of copyright law is clearly outside the bounds of what Congress could have possibly meant.

Filed Under: copyright, first sale, foreign works, libraries, supreme court
Companies: costco, omega

If The Public Library Was Invented Today, Would The Gov't Call It Organized Crime And Shut It Down?

from the ah,-the-digital-era dept

We've seen authors in the past complaining that libraries are engaged in book theft, which is an argument that is pretty laughable -- though, has, at times been suggested by various publishing groups. But, in general, most people recognize the public service a library does by helping to educate people. So when some folks in Bulgaria decided to try to set up a user-generated online library of sorts, you wouldn't think that the site would get raided by the police, be declared "damaging to culture," and have its organizers described as an organized crime syndicate. But, that's what happened.

The site, Chitanka.info let anyone upload works for a Bulgarian audience -- so there definitely were some infringing works on the site. However, the site was quick to take down any material upon request. The effort was strictly non-commercial, with no ads appearing anywhere on the site. In fact, many authors uploaded their own works, as they realized what a great resource it was.

However, the Bulgarian Book Association flipped out, and once it flipped out, the Bulgarian government had its organized crime law enforcement group raid the site, and describe the organizers as a "gang." Users of the site also took issue with the claim that the site was in any way damaging. They said it was regularly used like a library, but since you could only read the books on a computer, it likely resulted in more sales (or visits to physical libraries). A user of the site told TorrentFreak:

"I can't understand how any library can damage the the culture of any nation. And, as there are virtually no e-readers sold here, the only way to read the downloaded books, was on the monitors of PCs,"...

"Anybody that has ever read a book on a screen knows that it isn't very comfortable. So, lots of paper books have been bought, because when someone starts reading on the screen, likes the book, but is not comfortable, he goes to the book shop and buys it."

There's a great detailed legal analysis of Chitanka's position, noting that the law is a bit ambiguous here, but the site may have a reasonable defense, and qualify as protected under safe harbors by making its works "publicly accessible" as a library.

Either way, all of this makes you wonder: if traditional public libraries were just being founded today, how much effort do you think publishers would go through to shut them down by claiming they were illegal and violations of copyright law?

Filed Under: bulgaria, copyright, crime, libraries

Oh No! Nobody Reads! Oh No! It's Too Cheap For Everyone To Read!

from the accessibility-is-a-good-thing dept

We recently wrote about how booksellers were freaking out over the "price war" between Amazon and Wal-Mart, whereby they're starting to offer certain books at a very cheap price to bring in more customers. The whole thing was a bit silly. Reader Robin Trehaeven alerts us to a fantastic opinion piece in the Library Journal by Barbara Fister, a librarian at Gustavus Adolphus College, in which she does a superb job mocking what she refers to as the "accessibility paradox" where those who are used to being gatekeepers to information at the same time as they're supposedly promoting the benefits of greater information, suddenly start whining when information really does get more accessible. This includes those booksellers:

I'm also taken aback by the horrified response of the book industry. I thought the big crisis was that nobody reads. Now it turns out the problem is that books are so popular with the masses they're being used as bait to draw in shoppers.

Come on, guys, get your story straight! Which is it?

But most of her brilliant sarcasm is directed at those in her own profession, who both work hard to get information for free, at the same time they complain about how the internet has made it so easy to route around librarians:

It strikes me that this issue is somewhat parallel to the love-hate relationship that many academic librarians have had with the Internet. Although our complicated relationship is improving, there are still some silly assumptions floating around. Oh no, our reference stats are down! Hurrah! People are able to find answers without our help. That's awesome! Anybody can publish on the web, unlike scholarly journals which are peer-reviewed. Fine, but don't tell me all peer-reviewed journal articles are shining examples of reason and academic brilliance. A lot of them are finely-sliced research rehashing the same findings, or are closely examined and exquisitely detailed trivia. Besides, there are plenty of examples of peer review failing in spectacular ways--and examples of wonderful peer-reviewed journals that were born free online.

But this is my favorite: Unlike information you find on the web, we pay for the information in our databases, and you get what you pay for. No, actually, with what you pay for you get a lot of junk that you don't even want, but you have no choice.

You want this journal? You have to subscribe to this pricey bundle. Either that, or you purchase one article at a time for your users, something more and more libraries are doing. You spend less, but the information never visits the library--it goes straight from the publisher to the desk of one user. All the library gets is the bill. Apart from failing on its merits, the argument that paid is better than free is self-contradicting. We can't tell students that purchased information is by definition better than free and, at the same time, beg faculty to recognize how broken the current system is and please, please, please make their work open access.

It's a great overall column, and nice to see a librarian lay the smackdown on hypocrisy within the bookselling and librarian worlds.

Filed Under: barbara fister, books, information, libraries, open access, prices, reading

Copyright Holders Shutting Down University Copy Shops; Libraries Need To Worry About Photocopier Infringement

from the librarians-beware dept

It looks like copyright holders, in their non-stop effort to make themselves look even more evil, are now aggressively going after university copy shops. Up in Canada, Access Copyright hasn't just won a legal dispute against a Toronto copy shop, but has gleefully seized the photocopiers from the shop. Then, not all that far away in Eastern Michigan, a court found a copy shop to be directly liable for copies made by students. As the post at the Exclusive Rights blog explains, you would expect the copy shop to be liable for secondary infringement, rather than directly liable... but not in this case. And that's problematic for a variety of reasons. Even the publishers in question didn't seem to think they had a chance on direct liability, and only mentioned it in one sentence, while most of the complaint focused on secondary liability. So why is this a problem?

The reason this matters is that to find someone to be liable under secondary infringement (contributory liability), a plaintiff must show that the defendant had knowledge or reason to have knowledge of the direct infringement. This is one of the two mechanisms, along with fair use, that shields libraries from liability if they keep a copy machine by their shelves. If an entity can be directly liable for providing and maintaining a copy machine, and taking payment for copies made on the machine, then libraries have lost a not insignificant shield.

So, watch out librarians. You may have just acquired a bunch of liability. Look out for copyright holders stopping by to seize your photocopiers. Update: The author of that original post, Shourin Sen, has added an update, to take into account questions some people raised concerning 17 USC 118(f) which provides a special exemption for libraries -- but notes that those safe harbors could be under attack as well.

Filed Under: canada, copy shops, copyright, liability, libraries, photocopiers
Companies: access copyright

Do Libraries Need Permission To Lend Out Ebooks?

from the they-shouldn't dept

Reader OG points us to this NY Times article about how libraries are increasingly offering ebooks for download. This, of course, seems like a good idea, and fits in with the purpose of a library, but where the article gets either laughable or head-bangingly annoying is where it starts discussing how publishers have serious problems with this whole concept. Some publishers are refusing to allow libraries to lend out their ebooks...which makes me wonder why the publishers have any say in the matter. Thanks to the right of first sale, a library should be able to lend out an ebook if it's legally purchased it without having to get the publisher's permission.

Furthermore, the rest of the discussion is just silly. There are arguments about how many ebooks can be "checked out" at once or how the DRM works (which blocks the most popular ebook readers from being supported). There's also an issue of publishers charging libraries much higher prices for ebooks, and scoffing at a librarian who suggests that libraries should be allowed to offer as many copies as needed of an ebook to lend at the same time, and just pay the publishers a nominal fee.

It's hard to describe how insane this whole discussion sounds. Here you have a fantastic tool to support a library's main purpose in the world, and we're arguing over what sorts of artificial restrictions to set up to limit that tool from actually being useful? It's as if we discovered a way to make all the food the world ever needed, and we sit around talking about how to make sure that most people don't get fed. It would make me laugh if it weren't so disturbing that people seem to think this is a good thing.

Filed Under: ebooks, lending, libraries, permission, publishers

New Zealand Author Claims Libraries Are Involved In Grand Theft By Loaning Books

from the this-has-to-be-parody,-right? dept

Via Family Holloway, I came across a short opinion piece by Brian Edwards bitching about how libraries are facilitating book theft. At first, I honestly thought it was a joke or a parody, to make fun of those who complain about online "piracy," but I actually think he's serious. I'd never heard of Edwards, but apparently he's a big media personality and author in New Zealand. And, boy, does he hate the fact that libraries don't pay him every time someone checks out a book:

What pisses me off as an author is that for every person who buys your book, dozens of other bludgers get to read it for nothing. Let me give you an example. A few years back I wrote a biography of Helen Clark. It took about six months to write and during that time I had effectively no other income. The book retailed at $45. On the standard author's royalty of 10%, I got $4.50 for every copy sold. Helen, Portrait of a Prime Minister sold 9,000 copies, a reasonable if not spectacular figure in the New Zealand market. So I got $40,500 before tax for my six month's work.

I'm not complaining about that either. But...

Every public library in New Zealand bought at least one copy of Helen. And they lent each of those copies to other people to read for... nothing. Last year there were still 227.4 copies of the book in New Zealand public libraries. If each of those copies was taken out by one person a month, that's 2,729 people who read but didn't pay for my book -- my six month's work. At $4.50 per unsold copy, that's a theoretical loss of income to me in one year of $12,280.

While he later admits that not all of those people (and he made up the numbers anyway...) would have bought the book, but them immediately follows that statement up with this doozy:

But there's a principle here: when one person buys a book and lends it to another person to read, they effectively become an accessory to theft. Their generous act amounts to little more than stealing the author's work. When a public library buys a book and lends it to thousands of other people to read, it's grand theft copyright and really no different from illegally downloading music or movies or copying CDs or DVDs on your computer.

For someone who positions himself as an expert, he seems to have almost no understanding of the purpose of copyright law or of the public library systems. In the end, he says that libraries should pay him 1/4 of the usual book sale royalty per loan of his book. So, in his case, $1.13 every time the book is loaned out. Apparently, he doesn't quite realize that he's basically asking the public libraries, funded by public tax dollars, to subsidize him. The original Holloway link above does a nice job schooling Edwards, and then discusses things in more detail with Edwards in the comments -- though Edwards seems unwilling to budge on his claims of libraries being theives, or to understand basic common sense. Someone points out to him that if he bought a chainsaw, it would be ridiculous to stop him from lending it to someone, and his response is: "There is no intellectual property in a chainsaw."

Edwards also seems fully enamored with the myth that copyright law is based on some sort of "labor theory" -- that the more time you put in, somehow the more money you deserve to get out. While I'm unfamiliar with New Zealand copyright law, in the US, such theories have been widely discredited in the courts repeatedly. And, of course, they make no sense when viewed alongside the actual purpose of copyright law. Edwards seems to believe that copyright is welfare for creators, rather than an incentive to create.

In the meantime, perhaps the public libraries of New Zealand can do Mr. Edwards a favor next time he publishes a book: don't buy it. Ditto for anyone who might think of lending it... er... I mean, being an accessory to a crime in distributing copyrighted materials.

Filed Under: brian edwards, copyright, libraries, new zealand

Want To Get A Sense Of Just How Complex And Confusing Copyright Law Really Is?

from the then-check-this-out... dept

Michael Scott points us to an article concerning the Library of Congress issuing a report on how copyright law applies to libraries who possess unpublished audio works recorded prior to 1972. The problem, you see, is that no one was exactly sure whether or not these recordings were actually covered by copyright law. The real problem, though, becomes pretty clear pretty quickly as you read through the article: copyright law is a house of cards. We just keep layering new rules on top of old rules, and figure the courts will sort out the places where they contradict, overlap or confuse. But that leaves a ton of uncertainty in a variety of situations -- including this particular one. It should be a simple question: if a library is in possession of an unpublished sound recording from before 1972, what's the copyright status? But the mess that is copyright law makes it such that it's hardly an easy question at all -- and actually requires an 85-page report from the Library of Congress to go through all of the nuances. And then your everday individual is expected to understand what is "right" and "wrong" in copyright law?

Filed Under: confusion, copyright law, libraries, unpublished