From the Author:2023/This is why I chose to self-publish all along, ages ago

From Constant Noble
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Originally published on: 2023-03-25, 02:11
Updated: 2023-05-25, 04:30
Shortcut: FTA:20230325

...and this is exactly why Rogatia no longer has any publishing companies apart from Crusader[1] and Kids Can.[2]

Also, this is exactly why Rogatia all but abandoned its national court system in 2015—and a real government months prior. (The treatment of Aaron Schwarz by U.S. officials was more responsible than anything—hence The Internet's Own Boy ranking in the Bulwark's top-ten movies for 2014.)

Reproduced, verbatim and out of spite (as a public service), from blog.archive.org:

The Fight Continues

Posted on March 25, 2023 [00:17 UTC] by chrisfreeland

IA logo, whose Commons-provided title is more or less apt for what follows below.

Today’s lower court decision in Hachette v. Internet Archive is a blow to all libraries and the communities we serve. This decision impacts libraries across the US who rely on controlled digital lending to connect their patrons with books online. It hurts authors by saying that unfair licensing models are the only way their books can be read online. And it holds back access to information in the digital age, harming all readers, everywhere.

But it’s not over—we will keep fighting for the traditional right of libraries to own, lend, and preserve books. We will be appealing the judgment and encourage everyone to come together as a community to support libraries against this attack by corporate publishers.

We will continue our work as a library. This case does not challenge many of the services we provide with digitized books including interlibrary loan, citation linking, access for the print-disabled, text and data mining, purchasing ebooks, and ongoing donation and preservation of books.


Statement from Internet Archive founder, Brewster Kahle:

“Libraries are more than the customer service departments for corporate database products. For democracy to thrive at global scale, libraries must be able to sustain their historic role in society—owning, preserving, and lending books.

This ruling is a blow for libraries, readers, and authors and we plan to appeal it.”


Take Action!

Stand up for libraries ✊

Stand up for the digital rights of all libraries! Join the Battle for Libraries: https://www.battleforlibraries.com/

Support the Internet Archive 📚

Support the Internet Archive to continue fighting for libraries in court!

Stay connected 🔗

Sign up for the Empowering Libraries newsletter for ongoing updates about the lawsuit and our library.

Whether or not you're a creative or a reader or a researcher, and regardless of your feelings about IA's actions, it really matters now—and now is the time for action.


From Techdirt's Insider Discord, a while prior and a bit after. (Grab your popcorn—and get your Dramamine.)

John Roddy: "Ruling is out. Internet Archive loses on every single claim. Complete victory for the publishers. :/"

Samuel Abram: gifv

Roddy: "It's actually worse than I thought...

"I thought the court was analyzing the national emergency library thing, but it sounds like they were talking about CDL specifically.

"So yeah, CDL has formally been declared an inexcusable Copyright infringement."

Abram: gifv

"Now I gotta say: Quo vadis? What now? Is the Archive toast, like the Library of Alexandria?"

Roddy: "It relies heavily on the Warhol case.

"So the opinion in that could totally overturn this[.]

"SCOTUS is publishing opinions on Tuesday, so we might find out as soon as then.

"But yeah, this case is pretty much the peak of every little thing that has whittled away at fair use[3] over the years.

"The court even held that IA's use was unambiguously commercial."

Abram: "Unfortunately, New York Gov. Hochul is in thrall to the Publishers, having vetoed legislation to force the publishers to lend to libraries on reasonable terms[.]"

Roddy: "And the logic to get there more or less eliminates any meaning in the commercial/non-commercial test."

Abram: "You got to be f[...]ing kidding me[!]"

Roddy: "Nope. There is enough case law to support the position that "commercial" does not hinge on monetary gain."

Abram: "Ugh, the law in the country is such bulls[...]t."[4]

Roddy: "And from that starting position, it's easy to find commercial value[.]

"That's what I meant by this."

Abram: "If only the legislature and executive branch (and now judicial branch) weren't so corrupt[.]"

Roddy: "The law hasn't changed. But minor interpretation differences have added up."

Abram: "Fair[.]"

Roddy: "Nobody has any idea what counts as 'transformative' anymore."

Abram: "It's a real travesty[.]"

Roddy: "And I find it very unlikely the Warhol case will do anything to help[.]"

Abram: "I guess fair use doesn't exist anymore[.]"

Roddy: "Interestingly, the court doesn't quite go that far[.]

"As much as the publishers want scanning to be illegal full stop, they didn't get that.

"The court only cared about the way IA is using those scans."

Abram: "The publishers won't rest until the IA is burned to the ground. Mark my words."

Roddy: "It's a show of force to try and make libraries give up and accept the restrictive new versions of books too."

Mike Masnick: "2nd circuit has some good fair use precedents. hopefully the panel that gets this will remember that

"would be a nice one for pierre leval to jump on, even as he's on senior status, but i have no idea how the court handles bringing in judges who are on senior status"

Roddy: "I'm more concerned that the second circuit also seems to be in the lead for formally holding that the server test is no longer good law."

Masnick: "so much terribleness everywhere we look"


To mainstream publishers in every country, everywhere: Much as people like me (and whomever else supports this contributor) enjoy your titles and bestsellers, it is your corporate attitude—and attacks towards libraries—that we just can't stand anymore. You have no soul, no imagination, no concern for anything but profits and shareholders and what-have-you.

Someone once said, as quoted in UA executive Steven Bach's Final Cut, that all art is born out of anger; this protest edition is no doubt an example.

So until you go out of business or hopefully get sold to someone who cares about open source: Get a real grip.

And besides, you barely know any better about how you brought libraries into the world in the first place.

To Judge John G. Koeltl: I hope you lose your job. Soon.


Or better yet (to mainstream authors):[5] Why not quit those firms altogether and go small-press or self-pubbed? You're still bound to make money that way.


Which brings us to...

"Book Scanning Is Killing Literature!" We at Constant Noble left this site's original content public domain so you can help in the fight.

In case any small presses are reading this: Permission is already granted to print out this material (Unspooled, The Sevton Saga, the Tovasala Dictionary, et al.) in hardbound and softbound (take your pick), in whole or in part—all without payment. (Donations/tips welcome!)


Once again, our regularly scheduled topics will return in the next how many days.

For the future of Florida, America, Britain, creative arts, and Miraheze...

Routhwick (talk)

(3923)


P.S. This is page #15,001 on this wiki, following Tuesday's milestone edition.

P.P.S. I'll leave this last word from Fast Company's Lia Holland and Jordyn Paul-Slater—both from Fight for the Future:

"This lawsuit illustrates a new level of unabashed greed from publishing corporations and their shareholders, swathed in a record-profits-fueled PR campaign using inadequately compensated authors as human shields. Not only will the outcome shape access to knowledge, information, culture, and community for readers and authors alike—it will determine the safety of readers who seek information that may be banned or criminalized where they live.

"No one should ever be arrested for reading a book.[6] If publishing companies truly had the best interests of our society at heart, they would engage in good faith to help libraries own and preserve digital books in a way that is fair to authors and that puts the safety of readers first."

P.P.P.S. If you really matter, this May 23 follow-up from CurrentAffairs.org (by Stephen Prager) is well worth your time—especially the last segment, quoted below–while IA prepares to appeal. (Via r/KeepOurNetFree.)

"In the conclusion to his opinion, Judge Koeltl wrote:

'IA argues that its digital lending makes it easier for patrons who live far from physical libraries to access books and that it supports research, scholarship, and cultural participation by making books widely accessible on the Internet. But these alleged benefits cannot outweigh the market harm to the Publishers.'

"This is stunningly candid. Judge Koeltl is asking us to accept that a website that provides an unequivocal benefit to humanity be shut down so that these corporations can continue to profit handsomely without having to provide us with anything new to justify that profit.

"This contradicts everything we are supposed to believe about the virtues of free-market capitalism as a system. The competition between private commercial interests is supposed to spur innovations that lead to human flourishing. But what we have here is a nonprofit organization that is providing a better service than the for-profit ones. Instead of competing in the market by improving their product and reducing their prices, the publishing profiteers fight like cowards, using the legal system to destroy a valuable public service to protect their own profits. The economy is supposed to work for us, not the other way around. To accept this ruling is to consent to the idea that innovations that benefit everyone must be put on hold because they infringe upon the prerogative of a few profiteers."

Notes

  1. ^ They who once handled its Trouvaille-based namesake until they spun off that newspaper's operations (and historical-issue archive, Cruser) in March 2020 to focus on local editions of books from elsewhere.
  2. ^ Publishing branch of WildBrain Caribbean; branding licensed from Corus, whose Nelvana studio the former has a long-venerable partnership with. (Throughout the 2010s, Nelvana's catalogue was once in the hands of 20th Century Fox and then spin-off Skouras. During 2005–2012, TV rights were held by the short-lived FremantleRogatia [cf. a similar arrangement with their British counterpart].)
  3. ^ Miraheze, a British service, is subject to the stricter fair-dealing system.
  4. ^ Amen to that.
  5. ^ One in this group, Chuck Wendig, was involved early on in the proceedings in March 2020, leading to this tweet from tonight:

    "I hope your footnote in history is 'guy that killed the Internet Archive'." —Sergio Echigo (@kkdwwww)

    There is, however, another side to the story (as Freeland was quick to point out shortly after):

    "Hello, internet. I'm a librarian at the Internet Archive. Important reminder that @ChuckWendig:

    • is not involved in the publishers' lawsuit
    • has spoken out against the lawsuit
    • has spoken out in support of @internetarchive

    "Be mad at the publishers."

    In light of the controversy, "No surprise Chuck Wendig has locked his account" (to quote "KnightErrand"/Sterk). Another user, "VieraAficionado", piped in on a mention of another fantasy/sci-fi scribe therein:

    in fairness to gaiman; he's been pretty against the suit since it started and has claimed his initial comments weren't directed at the IA but rather NPR's supposedly "unhelpful" (whatever that means) article

  6. ^ To surface in the opening matter for Unspooled at some point during development.
No comments yet. To leave one, please select the "Discussion" tab and follow the general talk rules above the edit box.
Tags: Internet ArchiveLawsuitsPublishingHachetteManifesto