On Friday, we wrote about hundreds of authors signing a letter calling out the big publishers’ attacks on libraries (in many, many different ways). The publishers pretend to represent the best interests of the authors, but history has shown over and over again that they do not. They represent themselves, and use the names of authors they exploit to claim the moral high ground they do not hold.

It’s no surprise, then, that the publishers absolutely fucking lost their shit after the letter came out. The Association of American Publishers put out a statement falsely claiming that the letter, put out by Fight for the Future (FftF), and signed by tons of authors from the super famous to the less well known, was actually “disinformation in the Internet Archive case.” And, look, if you’re at the point you’re blaming the Internet Archive for something another group actually did, you know you’ve lost, and you’re just lashing out.

Perhaps much more telling is that the Authors Guild actually put out an even more aggressive statement against Fight for the Future. Now, as best selling author Barry Eisler (who signed onto Fight for the Future’s letter) wrote write here on Techdirt years ago, it’s been clear for a while that the Authors Guild is not actually representing the best interests of authors. It has long been a front group for the publishers themselves.

The Authors Guild’s response to the FftF letter simply confirms this.

First, it claims that authors were misled into signing the letter by an earlier, different draft of the letter. This is simply false. The Authors Guild is making shit up because they just can’t believe that maybe authors actually support this.

They do name one author, Daniel Handler (aka Lemony Snicket), who had signed on, but removed his name before the letter was even published. But… I’m guessing the real reason that probably happened was that the publishers (who learned about the letter before it was published as proved by this email that was sent around prior to the release) FLIPPED OUT when they saw Handler’s name was on the letter. That’s because in their lawsuit against the Internet Archive’s open library project, they rely heavily on the claim that Lemony Snicket’s books are available there.

It seems reasonable to speculate that the publishers saw his name was on the letter, realized it undermined basically the crux of their case, and came down like a ton of bricks on him to pressure him into un-signing the letter. That story, at the very least, makes more sense than someone like Handler somehow being “tricked” into signing a letter that very clearly says what it says.

The Authors Guild’s other claims are equally sketchy.

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 ebook pirates, not libraries.

This completely misrepresents what the Open Library does, and its direct parallel to any physical library, in that it buys a copy of a book and then can lend out that copy of the book. The courts have already established that scanning books is legal fair use — thanks to a series of cases the Authors Guild brought and lost (embarrassingly so) — and the Open Library then only allows a one-to-one lending of ebooks to actual books. It is functionally equivalent to any other library in any way.

And this is actually important, living at a time when these very same publishers are trying to use twisted interpretations of copyright law, to insist that they can limit how libraries buy and lend ebooks in ways that simply are not possible under the law with regular books.

Also, there’s this bit of nonsense:

The lawsuit is being brought only against IA’s Open Library; it will not impact in any way the Wayback Machine or any other services IA offers.

This is laughable. The lawsuit is asking for millions and millions of dollars from the Internet Archive. If it loses the case, there’s a very strong likelihood that the entire Internet Archive will need to shut down, because it will be unable to pay. Even if the Internet Archive could survive, the idea that this non-profit would be forced to fork over tens of millions of dollars wouldn’t have any impact on other parts of its offerings is laughable.

Fight for the Future has hit back at these accusations:

As expected, corporate publishing industry lobbyists have responded by attempting to undermine the demands of these authors by circulating false and condescending talking points, a frequent tactic lobbyists use to divert attention from the principled actions of activists.

The statement from the Authors Guild specifically asserts, without evidence, that “multiple authors” who signed this letter feel they were “misled”. This assertion is false and we challenge these lobbyists to either provide evidence for their claim or retract it. 

It’s repugnant for industry lobbying associations who claim to represent authors to dismiss the activism of author-signatories like Neil Gaiman, Chuck Wendig, Naomi Klein, Robert McNamee, Baratunde Thurston, Lawrence Lessig, Cory Doctorow, Annalee Newitz, and Douglas Rushkoff, or claim that these authors were somehow misled into signing a brief and clear letter issuing specific demands for the good of all libraries. Corporate publishing lobbyists are free to disagree with the views stated in our letter, but it’s unacceptable for them to make false claims about our organization or the authors who signed.

They also highlight how many authors who signed onto the letter talked about how proud they are that their books are available at the Internet Archive, which is not at all what you would expect if the Open Library was actually about “piracy.”

Author Elizabeth Kate Switaj said when signing: “My most recently published book is on the Internet Archive—and that delights me.”  Dan Gillmor said: “Big Publishing would outlaw public libraries if it could—or at least make it impossible for libraries to buy and lend books as they have traditionally done, to enormous public benefit—and its campaign against the Internet Archive is a step toward that goal.” Sasha Costanza-Cook called publisher’s actions against the Internet Archive “absolutely shameful” and Laura Gibbs said “it’s the library I use most, and I am proud to see my books there.”

They, also, rightly push back on the totally nonsense claims that FftF is “not independent” and is somehow a front for the Internet Archive. I know people at both organizations, and this assertion is laughable. The two organizations agree on many things, but are absolutely and totally independent. This is nothing but a smear from the Authors Guild which can’t even fathom that most authors don’t like the publishers or the way the Authors Guild has become an organization that doesn’t look out for the best interests of all authors, but rather just a few of the biggest names.

Source: Publishers Lose Their Shit After Authors Push Back On Their Attack On Libraries | Techdirt

A group of authors and other creative professionals are lending their names to an open letter protesting publishers’ lawsuit against the Internet Archive Library, characterizing it as one of a number of efforts to curb libraries’ lending of ebooks.

Authors including Neil Gaiman, Naomi Klein, and Cory Doctorow lent their names to the letter, which was organized by the public interest group Fight for the Future.

“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 letter states.

A group of publishers sued the Internet Archive in 2020, claiming that its open library violates copyright by producing “mirror image copies of millions of unaltered in-copyright works for which it has no rights” and then distributes them “in their entirety for reading purposes to the public for free, including voluminous numbers of books that are commercially available.” They also contend that the archive’s scanning undercuts the market for e-books.

The Internet Archive says that its lending of the scanned books is akin to a traditional library. In its response to the publishers’ lawsuit, it warns of the ramifications of the litigation and claims that publishers “would like to force libraries and their patrons into a world in which books can only be accessed, never owned, and in which availability is subject to the rightsholders’ whim.”

The letter also calls for enshrining “the right of libraries to permanently own and preserve books, and to purchase these permanent copies on reasonable terms, regardless of format,” and condemns the characterization of library advocates as “mouthpieces” for big tech.

“We fear a future where libraries are reduced to a sort of Netflix or Spotify for books, from which publishers demand exorbitant licensing fees in perpetuity while unaccountable vendors force the spread of disinformation and hate for profit,” the letter states.

The litigation is in the summary judgment stage in U.S. District Court in New York.

Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, John Wiley & Sons Inc and Penguin Random House are plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

[…]

Source: Authors Publish Letter Protesting Lawsuit Against Internet Library – Deadline

Last year, I tried to create a “test suite” of websites that any new internet regulation ought to be “tested” against. The idea was that regulators were so obsessively focused on the biggest of the big guys (i.e., Google, Meta) that they never bothered to realize how it might impact other decently large websites that involved totally different setups and processes. For example, it’s often quite impossible to figure out how a regulation about Google and Facebook content moderation would work on sites like Wikipedia, Github, Discord, or Reddit.

Last week, we called out that Texas’s HB 20 social media content moderation law almost certainly applies to sites like Wikipedia and Reddit, yet I couldn’t see any fathomable way in which those sites could comply, given that so much of the moderation on each is driven by users rather than the company. It’s been funny watching supporters of the law try to insist that this is somehow easy for Wikipedia (probably the most transparent larger site on the internet) to comply with by being “more transparent and open access.”

If you somehow can’t see that tweet or screenshot, it’s a Trumpist defender of the law responding to someone asking how Wikipedia can comply with the law, saying:

Wikipedia would have to offer more transparent and open access to their platform, which would allow truth to flourish over propaganda there? Is that what you’re worried about, or what is it?

To which a reasonably perplexed Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales rightly responds:

What on earth are you talking about? It’s like you are writing from a different dimension.

Anyway… it seems some folks on Reddit are realizing the absurdity of the law and trying to demonstrate it in the most internety way possible. Michael Vario alerts us that the r/PoliticalHumor subreddit is “messing with Texas” by requiring every comment to include the phrase “Greg Abbott is a little piss baby” or be deleted in a fit of content moderation discrimination in violation of the HB20 law against social media “censorship.”

Until further notice, all comments posted to this subreddit must contain the phrase “Greg Abbott is a little piss baby”

There is a reason we’re doing this, the state of Texas has passed H.B. 20, Full text here, which is a ridiculous attempt to control social media. Just this week, an appeals court reinstated the law after a different court had declared it unconstitutional. Vox has a pretty easy to understand writeup, but the crux of the matter is, the law attempts to force social media companies to host content they do not want to host. The law also requires moderators to not censor any specific point of view, and the language is so vague that you must allow discussion about human cannibalization if you have users saying cannibalization is wrong. Obviously, there are all sorts of real world problems with it, the obvious ones being forced to host white nationalist ideology or insurrectionist ideation. At the risk of editorializing, that might be a feature, not a bug for them.

Anyway, Reddit falls into a weird category with this law. The actual employees of the company Reddit do, maybe, one percent of the moderation on the site. The rest is handled by disgusting jannies volunteer moderators, who Reddit has made quite clear over the years, aren’t agents of Reddit (mainly so they don’t lose millions of dollars every time a mod approves something vaguely related to Disney and violates their copyright). It’s unclear whether we count as users or moderators in relation to this law, and none of us live in Texas anyway. They can come after all 43 dollars in my bank account if they really want to, but Virginia has no obligation to extradite or anything.

We realized what a ripe situation this is, so we’re going to flagrantly break this law. Partially to raise awareness of the bullshit of it all, but mainly because we find it funny. Also, we like this Constitution thing. Seems like it has some good ideas.

They also include a link to the page where people can file a complaint with the Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton, asking him to investigate whether the deletion of any comments that don’t claim that his boss, Governor Greg Abbott, is “a little piss baby” is viewpoint discrimination in violation of the law.

Source: Subreddit Discriminates Against Anyone Who Doesn’t Call Texas Governor Greg Abbott ‘A Little Piss Baby’ To Highlight Absurdity Of Content Moderation Law | Techdirt