The debate over Internet Archive’s Emergency Library
There are always two sides to every story, and The Legal Genealogist is guilty of brushing past that simple fact in touting the Internet Archive’s decision to make a National Emergency Library of in-copyright works available without the express permission of all of the copyright holders.
For every reader or user benefited by the decision, there’s also a writer on the other side who may be getting hurt.
Here’s the other side of the story: from the Authors Guild, “Internet Archive’s National Emergency Library Harms Authors,” posted 27 March 2020.
And of course Internet Archive has responded: “Internet Archive responds: Why we released the National Emergency Library,” posted 30 Mar 2020.
Read them both, and make up your own mind.
Cite/link to this post: Judy G. Russell, “Two sides to every story,” The Legal Genealogist (https://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog : posted 30 Mar 2020).
I read both articles. My reaction is that it is wrong to purchase one copy of a book that is under copyright and make it available for an unlimited number of people without permission. This seems to fail a basic fair use test, based on amount and substantiality. Theft is theft. I am not buying what is a Robin Hood argument; let’s steal from authors and give to the children. Getting thanks from a few dozen people is not a legal argument. My background is as an owner of a software company so I have strong sense of valuing intellectual property of all sorts. We placed software keys in our software to prevent theft similar to this. My two cents worth.
I confess that when I read your earlier blog post, my initial reaction was, “What a great thing to do!” I then shared the link to your blog post with about fifty of my closest friends. 🙂
Now, after reading this post and the statements issued by the Authors Guild and Internet Archive (IA), I realize that things are not nearly as simple as they may have seemed at first glance.
First, a question about the law: By its own admission, IA claims to have purchased a copy of each book and then photocopied each page. It is the photocopies that are being made available to the public. How is this NOT a violation of copyright law?
Aside from the legal question, I see an eerie parallel between this situation and the ongoing debate about the use of DNA databases (specifically FTDNA and GedMatch) for law enforcement purposes. In each case:
1. An entity having access to material (DNA profile, copyrighted material) owned by others made a unilateral decision to share that information with a third party WITHOUT the informed consent of the owner.
2. Legalities aside, the owners then run the risk of being cast as the bad guys/gals if they opt out after the fact. (“You are on the side of the criminals.” “You are trying to profit from the virus.”) Moreover, they were robbed of being cast as the good guys/gals by not being asked up front if they wanted to participate. They should never have been placed on the spot like this to begin with.
3. Others who are watching from the sidelines (persons who we want to take a DNA test, other authors) look at the mess and decide that their best option is simply to walk away.
In each case, the outcome could have been positive if only the offending entity (Internet Archive, FTDNA, GedMatch) had FIRST simply notified the owners: “Hey, we just had this idea … Are you in or out?”
Thanks, as always, for keeping us informed and sharing your insight.