You are viewing your 1 free article this month. Login to read more articles.
More than 300 authors including Neil Gaiman, Naomi Klein, and Lawrence Lessig have teamed up with advocacy group Fight for the Future with an open letter demanding publishers and trade organisations "cease efforts to undermine the essential contributions of libraries to an accessible and inclusive world of books”.
The letter mainly focuses on the lawsuit brought against the Internet Archive, over its Open Library programme, involving mass scanning and distribution of literary works under a process called Controlled Digital Lending (CDL) which publishers and trade organisations have criticised for “facilitating the distribution of millions of pirated books without paying a penny to the authors and publishers who produce them”.
There is also reference to the Association of American Publishers (AAP) suing to block a Maryland law that would have required publishers to offer commercially available e-book licences to libraries on “reasonable terms”.
The Authors Guild called the open letter "highly misleading” while the AAP and Publishers Association (PA) have sought to stress that the Internet Archive is “not a library” but instead “a pirate website”.
The letter begins: “Libraries are a fundamental collective good. We, the undersigned authors, are disheartened by the recent attacks against libraries being made in our name by trade associations such as the American Association of Publishers and the Publishers Association: undermining the traditional rights of libraries to own and preserve books, intimidating libraries with lawsuits, and smearing librarians.”
The open letter calls for publishers, distributors and trade associations to “enshrine the right of libraries to permanently own and preserve books, and to purchase these permanent copies on reasonable terms, regardless of format” noting “many libraries would prefer to own and preserve digital editions, as they have always done with print books, but these days publishers rarely offer them the option. Instead, when libraries have access to e-books at all, the prices libraries pay to rent e-books are often likened to extortion”.
It added: “Digital editions are more affordable to produce and often more accessible, but libraries are already relying on emergency funds and may only be able to license a small selection of mainstream works in the future. In turn, readers will have fewer opportunities to discover the more diverse potential bestsellers of tomorrow.”
It also called for the end of lawsuits “aimed at intimidating libraries and diminishing their role in society”. The letter said: “The interests of libraries are the interests of the public, and of any author concerned with equity and longevity for themselves and their fellow writers. We are all on the same side. Yet a unanimously passed Maryland state law ensuring libraries pay ‘reasonable fees’ for digital editions died after the AAP sued. And after a previous suit failed, several publishers are currently suing the Internet Archive Library in an attempt to prohibit all libraries from lending out scanned copies of books they own. While undermining libraries may financially benefit the wealthiest and most privileged authors and corporations in the short term, this behaviour is utterly opposed to the interests of authors as a whole.”
Lastly, it demanded the groups “end smear campaigns against librarians”. The letter said: “Recent comments likening library advocates to ‘mouthpieces’ for Big Tech are as tasteless as they are inaccurate" adding “as a last bastion of truth, privacy, and access to diverse voices, libraries’ digital operations grow ever more essential to our society—and their work should be celebrated, not censured”.
The major trade associations have pushed back strongly against the letter, insisting they do support public libraries, and suggesting the letter is an Internet Archive–backed PR campaign.
A statement issued by the Authors Guild and supported by 17 other writer and creator organisations including the UK’s Society of Authors, said: “The lawsuit against Open Library is completely unrelated to the traditional rights of libraries to own and preserve books. It is about Open Library’s attempt to stretch fair use to the breaking point, where any website that calls itself a library could scan books and make them publicly available, a practice engaged in by e-book pirates, not libraries.”
It went on to call the campaign "highly misleading” and noted that author Daniel Handler had initially agreed to sign the letter before "disavowing" it through the Authors Guild.
Terrence Hart, AAP general counsel, added: “That authors and publishers support libraries is not in dispute and most certainly not at issue in the infringement case against the Internet Archive, which is not a library.
“On the contrary, the Internet Archive operates an unlicensed digital copying and distribution business that copies millions of literary works without permission and gives them away for free. This activity is unprecedented and outside any reasonable interpretation of the copyright law that grants to authors the decision as to whether, when, through whom, and on what terms to distribute their works to the public.
“If an author chooses to permit the copying of print books into e-books, that is a choice they are empowered to make as to their own works. The Internet Archive robs authors of that choice.
“As is made clear in the publishers’ suit, motion for summary judgement, and opposition brief, this case is about protecting the thousands of authors and publishers who depend on the copyright law that Congress enacted and the Internet Archive has elected to ignore.”
Dan Conway, c.e.o. at the PA agreed, noting: “We continue to support the Association of American Publishers (AAP) and publishers in their legal action against Internet Archive. We wholeheartedly support libraries and champion the role they play in expanding reading worldwide. However, Internet Archive is not a library, it is a pirate website. It is therefore entirely right that action is taken accordingly.”