Literature without the past, or Down with the library
As many have probably noticed, another round of Exmo / Litres struggle with online libraries and online readers is taking place. Since there is still very little information, apart from the original reports of the right-wing lobby, I will try to tell you below what is happening. And why it happens in this form. Looking ahead - to protect the rights of anyone unfolding action has nothing to do.
The current attack began about a month and a half ago. Usually, I don’t track and do not read into the military rhetoric of copyright advocates, as their songs are no different. Publishers going around the world, trillions of damages, brilliant writers working as janitors, shooting everyone, planting the rest, suing everything and everyone ... stop. But this is already interesting. Not too trusting your own judgment, not a professional lawyer, nevertheless, was not too lazy to talk, look for statistics and delve into all the available information. And ... bingo. But first, a few words about the legal situation.
We will not touch those who in one way or another sells texts online. Commodity-money relations are complex and even harder to conduct them honestly. On theft, they caught both Liters and Aymobilka , there is nothing new here. Let's look at non-profit wiki libraries in the image of the famous Flibusta.
')
From a legal point of view, the closest match is YouTube, no more and no less. YouTube for texts, minus commerce plus wiki. Which is very convenient, since the world legal system has already become accustomed to working with YouTube, it’s not for nothing that it hasn’t gotten out of the courts in recent years. This is the experience we will occupy. In particular, the following principles have crystallized today.
1) The resource is not considered the owner of the materials posted on it. In the event of any violation, he is not liable as the culprit.
2) The resource is not required to independently check the materials for violations. To get rid of responsibility as a provider, he must block access to infringing materials, and he must do this after receiving full and accurate instructions with confirmation of rights.
Read already understood. Surprisingly, but a fact: these zealous and tireless defenders of copyright for all the years have not sent a single claim to the mean pirates. In general, none, not to mention having a formal force. It would be interesting to look at their correspondence with providers, but those, as far as I know, do not disclose the details, preferring to simply get rid of the small client. In its own right, unfortunately.
What follows from this at first - only at first - a look of strange behavior? First, as expected, with any judicial inclinations comrades would fly like plywood over Paris. It is a pity that libraries do not have legal representation, as this would be a classic situation for a claim for damages.
However, let's think a step further. Why do they act that way? Hardly from ignorance, the department of highly paid lawyers can not know the basics. And the answer lies on the surface - because they are not interested in any rights of some authors, except as a verbal screen. We are witnessing a clumsy and homegrown attempt to push through a monopoly.
It is well known that the formation of the network has increased competition among manufacturers, expanding the available offer to the scale of the whole world. However, this is only part of the mosaic and a smaller part. Each art worker also competes first and foremost with his predecessors. Digital technologies gave us the opportunity to stop the natural decay and oblivion of works of art. Pictures no longer fade, books do not grow moldy and do not creep away from chlorine, notes do not die in fires. Directories and search engines provide instant access to an unlimited amount of data. An ideal memory and an ideal archive for the first time became a reality.
But if works of art are no longer lost, over time their number reaches a certain critical mass, making it difficult and simply making the creation of a new one unnecessary. It is difficult to draw a new brilliant still life, if before you 10 generations of masters were doing the same. The result we can all observe. What is the percentage of contemporary works in art galleries, how often do concerts of the last hundred years perform at concerts? In entertainment music and movies, the same trend is everywhere. It would be strange to expect that the books will not be subject to a similar process.
Classic publishers live off massive sales of a continuous stream of new products. What to do when more wonderful books are already written than a person is able to read? And technology promises instant access to them? But there is also Samizdat, where there is not only enough fashionable love and LITRP, but also quite serious documentation and memoirs. There is Amazon, which has turned the international market and is gradually entering the Russian market. Clever heads of progress, fools are trying to stop the time and turn the stuffing back. Today's copyright laws are the work of the latter. It would be ridiculous to watch attempts to introduce an eternal copyright for the protection of “Happy Birthday” and Donald Duck, if we all did not suffer from them.
From here, there are attempts to close the library by any means. You can - outbid, not sold - ask. Classics should be available only in paid translation from Russian to Russian. The 20th century, the Soviet period is not needed, today's stamping looks too pathetic on their background. Remove old, familiar translations - let them buy our modern ones, students must also make money. No free licenses, no amateur translations and other heresy, the authors are selected and promoted only by the publisher. It looks like the struggle for existence, when there is power and money, and nothing but them.
I have no doubt that sooner or later the pendulum will swing back. For example, in the EU, a directive has been in force since last year, legitimizing the use of orphan works (orphan works), and rules are being prepared for out-of-commerce (not published and commercially inaccessible) books. It is no secret that in the post-Soviet space the share of such works is especially high.
Summing up, we are dealing with a monopoly in the stage of (not) natural expansion. The crumpled physical market has whetted the appetite and now it is about controlling access to texts in any way. The consumer should live in the present and, if possible, not be distracted from consumption. How successful this attempt will be, time will tell.
The current attack began about a month and a half ago. Usually, I don’t track and do not read into the military rhetoric of copyright advocates, as their songs are no different. Publishers going around the world, trillions of damages, brilliant writers working as janitors, shooting everyone, planting the rest, suing everything and everyone ... stop. But this is already interesting. Not too trusting your own judgment, not a professional lawyer, nevertheless, was not too lazy to talk, look for statistics and delve into all the available information. And ... bingo. But first, a few words about the legal situation.
We will not touch those who in one way or another sells texts online. Commodity-money relations are complex and even harder to conduct them honestly. On theft, they caught both Liters and Aymobilka , there is nothing new here. Let's look at non-profit wiki libraries in the image of the famous Flibusta.
')
From a legal point of view, the closest match is YouTube, no more and no less. YouTube for texts, minus commerce plus wiki. Which is very convenient, since the world legal system has already become accustomed to working with YouTube, it’s not for nothing that it hasn’t gotten out of the courts in recent years. This is the experience we will occupy. In particular, the following principles have crystallized today.
1) The resource is not considered the owner of the materials posted on it. In the event of any violation, he is not liable as the culprit.
2) The resource is not required to independently check the materials for violations. To get rid of responsibility as a provider, he must block access to infringing materials, and he must do this after receiving full and accurate instructions with confirmation of rights.
Read already understood. Surprisingly, but a fact: these zealous and tireless defenders of copyright for all the years have not sent a single claim to the mean pirates. In general, none, not to mention having a formal force. It would be interesting to look at their correspondence with providers, but those, as far as I know, do not disclose the details, preferring to simply get rid of the small client. In its own right, unfortunately.
What follows from this at first - only at first - a look of strange behavior? First, as expected, with any judicial inclinations comrades would fly like plywood over Paris. It is a pity that libraries do not have legal representation, as this would be a classic situation for a claim for damages.
However, let's think a step further. Why do they act that way? Hardly from ignorance, the department of highly paid lawyers can not know the basics. And the answer lies on the surface - because they are not interested in any rights of some authors, except as a verbal screen. We are witnessing a clumsy and homegrown attempt to push through a monopoly.
It is well known that the formation of the network has increased competition among manufacturers, expanding the available offer to the scale of the whole world. However, this is only part of the mosaic and a smaller part. Each art worker also competes first and foremost with his predecessors. Digital technologies gave us the opportunity to stop the natural decay and oblivion of works of art. Pictures no longer fade, books do not grow moldy and do not creep away from chlorine, notes do not die in fires. Directories and search engines provide instant access to an unlimited amount of data. An ideal memory and an ideal archive for the first time became a reality.
But if works of art are no longer lost, over time their number reaches a certain critical mass, making it difficult and simply making the creation of a new one unnecessary. It is difficult to draw a new brilliant still life, if before you 10 generations of masters were doing the same. The result we can all observe. What is the percentage of contemporary works in art galleries, how often do concerts of the last hundred years perform at concerts? In entertainment music and movies, the same trend is everywhere. It would be strange to expect that the books will not be subject to a similar process.
Classic publishers live off massive sales of a continuous stream of new products. What to do when more wonderful books are already written than a person is able to read? And technology promises instant access to them? But there is also Samizdat, where there is not only enough fashionable love and LITRP, but also quite serious documentation and memoirs. There is Amazon, which has turned the international market and is gradually entering the Russian market. Clever heads of progress, fools are trying to stop the time and turn the stuffing back. Today's copyright laws are the work of the latter. It would be ridiculous to watch attempts to introduce an eternal copyright for the protection of “Happy Birthday” and Donald Duck, if we all did not suffer from them.
From here, there are attempts to close the library by any means. You can - outbid, not sold - ask. Classics should be available only in paid translation from Russian to Russian. The 20th century, the Soviet period is not needed, today's stamping looks too pathetic on their background. Remove old, familiar translations - let them buy our modern ones, students must also make money. No free licenses, no amateur translations and other heresy, the authors are selected and promoted only by the publisher. It looks like the struggle for existence, when there is power and money, and nothing but them.
I have no doubt that sooner or later the pendulum will swing back. For example, in the EU, a directive has been in force since last year, legitimizing the use of orphan works (orphan works), and rules are being prepared for out-of-commerce (not published and commercially inaccessible) books. It is no secret that in the post-Soviet space the share of such works is especially high.
Summing up, we are dealing with a monopoly in the stage of (not) natural expansion. The crumpled physical market has whetted the appetite and now it is about controlling access to texts in any way. The consumer should live in the present and, if possible, not be distracted from consumption. How successful this attempt will be, time will tell.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/194502/
All Articles