Copyright?

[mhumpher]

Isn't your e-book library a grave violation of copyright?

[Geremia]

How so?

[mhumpher]

Not a few of the books state "All rights reserved" which includes the right to distribute and reproduce. Others state more explicitly that the works are not to be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted without the approval of the copyright owners. Your library seems to do that and thus appears to be a violation of copyright law.

[Geremia]

Not a few of the books state "All rights reserved" which includes the right to distribute and reproduce. Others state more explicitly that the works are not to be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted without the approval of the copyright owners. Your library seems to do that and thus appears to be a violation of copyright law.

Certainly it would be if I were reselling the books, no?
Is my use not "fair use" for educational purposes (e.g., discussing works on this forum)?

[mhumpher]

That is a potential defense, but seems weak. First, reselling is not essential to a violation of copyright, but would be an example of it. It would be more plausible, if access were restricted to members of the forum and membership in someway restricted. However, membership is public and even the library itself does not require membership. Though you formally intend it to be solely for education uses in discussion upon the forum, you materially intend unlimited access to copyrighted works to the public.

Quotes from the wiki article:

"Fair use provides for the legal, unlicensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test."
If this is the essence of fair use, then the library is not fair use as the material is not being incorporated into your work.

"The first factor is "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes." To justify the use as fair, one must demonstrate how it either advances knowledge or the progress of the arts through the addition of something new."
Given this, it would be difficult to justify a library that includes works on C or AP Stats given that the forum is focused on Catholic and Thomistic theology and philosophy. Therefore, it seems to not pass the first test in this respect.

"The third factor assesses the amount and substantiality of the copyrighted work that has been used. In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, the more likely the use will be considered fair."
Generally, you have the whole of every work present, which would be extremely unfavorable in upholding fair use. A fair use example would be quoting from text, even a lengthy quote, posted on the forum for discussion. That would be consistent with your position, but that would not be a defense of the library as such.

"Noncommercial, nonprofit use is presumptively fair. ... Hoehn posted the Work as part of an online discussion. ... This purpose is consistent with comment, for which 17 U.S.C. § 107 provides fair use protection. ... It is undisputed that Hoehn posted the entire work in his comment on the Website. ... wholesale copying does not preclude a finding of fair use. ... there is no genuine issue of material fact that Hoehn's use of the Work was fair and summary judgment is appropriate."
This provides potential strength to your argument. However, you are not discussing all of the books nor in their entirety and at least some are on topics unrelated to the general discussion upon the forum as mentioned above. Your library is more consistent with file sharing which "the Court in the case at bar rejected the idea that file-sharing is fair use."

[Geremia]

The purpose of copyright was given in "Feist Publication, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340, 349-50 (1991) (citations omitted):"

The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but [t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts. To this end, copyright assures authors the right to their original expression, but encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work. This result is neither unfair nor unfortunate. It is the means by which copyright advances the progress of science and art.

Related to U.S. law not considering copyright infringement theft is Stephan N. Kinsella's argument in Against Intellectual Property that IP is not property because property rights only apply to scarce resources:

But surely it is clear, given the origin, justification, and function of property rights, that they are applicable only to scarce resources. Were we in a Garden of Eden where land and other goods were infinitely abundant, there would be no scarcity and, therefore, no need for property rules; property concepts would be meaningless. The idea of conflict, and the idea of rights, would not even arise. For example, your taking my lawnmower would not really deprive me of it if I could conjure up another in the blink of an eye. Lawnmower-taking in these circumstances would not be "theft." Property rights are not applicable to things of infinite abundance, because there cannot be conflict over such things.

This is similar to the argument Aaron Swartz gave in his short article "Downloading isn't Stealing."

[Geremia]

One of my YouTube videos contains a non-copyrighted performance of the Veni Creator Spiritus, and two music agencies were already making money off it, claiming I was reproducing their recording! These are the agencies:

"VENI CREATOR SPIRITUS", musical composition administered by:
SACEM
APRA_CS
SIAE_CS
PRS CS
SGAE_CS

[Alainval]

I'm glad I found the Isidore Library, but I can't help but worry that it's illegal since books that would otherwise cost us money is offered freely to all without cost. My conscience would even go as far as to say it's a sin since it's basically akin to stealing. Am I just being scrupulous?

[Geremia]

I'm glad I found the Isidore Library, but I can't help but worry that it's illegal since books that would otherwise cost us money is offered freely to all without cost. My conscience would even go as far as to say it's a sin since it's basically akin to stealing. Am I just being scrupulous?

You're free and encouraged to support the authors.
You're also free not to download anything from here.

[Geremia]

I saw the reply but I still felt unconvinced and worried. Any other things you could say?

St. Augustine, De doctrina Christiana bk. 1, ch. 1: "For a possession which is not diminished by being shared with others, if it is possessed and not shared, is not yet possessed as it ought to be possessed." (cf. Willinsky p. 82).

Also, the internet and ease of sharing information was unknown when © law was first developed (cf. the Google TechTalk The Surprising History of Copyright... infra), so the virtue of epikeia (against legal pharisaism) must be applied here. II-II q. 120 a. 1 ad 1: "it is written in the Codex of Laws and Constitutions under Law v: 'Without doubt he transgresses the law who by adhering to the letter of the law strives to defeat the intention of the lawgiver.'" The intention of the law is "not to reward the labor of authors, but [t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" (quoted above), not restrict the sharing of knowledge.

[Alainval]

But I though that copyright statement was to intellectual property and not to physical books which have in their front pages "All rights reserved." But on the other hand, if the intention of the author was to spread their information then its permissible to download their writings free of charge? Is that what you mean?

[Kephapaulos]

I have also been concerned about the free library here, Alainval, but it can actually promote the sale of the physical copies of the books. I know it has with me. The electronic files are cheap in themselves and incur little if any loss to the authors I would imagine.

As Geremia pointed out, the primary purpose of the author writing is to further the common good of human society and not merely produce writing only to gain monetary profit, even if it be one's livelihood. Money is not to be the aim.

"No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon" (Matt. 6:24).

"For the desire of money is the root of all evils; which some coveting have erred from the faith and have entangled themselves in many sorrows" (1 Timothy 6:10).

[Geremia]

Prümmer, O.P., Manuale Theologiæ Moralis, PDF pp. 529-30 (§§8-9) on ius auctoris (author rights):

All teach, indeed, that it is pure and putrid theft if one secretly steals other manuscripts, artifacts, or artifacts not yet published, because the legitimate owner is reasonably unwilling on account of the serious damage and serious injury inflicted on him. But when the manuscript is already printed, or if the invention (commonly known as a Patent) has already been divulged, theologians debate whether a new printed book without the author's permission or an imitation of the invention is contrary to natural law and there be an obligation for restitution. Some deny it, because once the work has been divulged, it has become the common good, which can be lawfully occupied by all [cf. esp. Bucceroni, Theol. mor. I, n. 878; somewhat Morres, De iust. I, n. 24; Vermeersch, De iust. n. 246 sqq.]; but the more general and truer opinion affirms it, with the restrictions indicated by the positive law.

(quoted here)

[Geremia]

Copyright reform is necessary for national security

annas-archive.li/blog, 2025-01-31 — companion articles by TorrentFreak: first, second

TL;DR: Chinese LLMs (including DeepSeek) are trained on my illegal archive of books and papers — the largest in the world. The West needs to overhaul copyright law as a matter of national security.

Not too long ago, "shadow-libraries" were dying. Sci-Hub, the massive illegal archive of academic papers, had stopped taking in new works, due to lawsuits. "Z-Library", the largest illegal library of books, saw its alleged creators arrested on criminal copyright charges. They incredibly managed to escape their arrest, but their library is no less under threat.

When Z-Library faced shutdown, I had already backed up its entire library and was searching for a platform to house it. That was my motivation for starting Anna's Archive: a continuation of the mission behind those earlier initiatives. We've since grown to be the largest shadow library in the world, hosting more than 140 million copyrighted texts across numerous formats — books, academic papers, magazines, newspapers, and beyond.

Me and my team are ideologues. We believe that preserving and hosting these files is morally right. Libraries around the world are seeing funding cuts, and we can't trust humanity's heritage to corporations either.

Then came AI. Virtually all major companies building LLMs contacted us to train on our data. Most (but not all!) US-based companies reconsidered once they realized the illegal nature of our work. By contrast, Chinese firms have enthusiastically embraced our collection, apparently untroubled by its legality. This is notable given China's role as a signatory to nearly all major international copyright treaties.

We have given high-speed access to about 30 companies. Most of them are LLM companies, and some are data brokers, who will resell our collection. Most are Chinese, though we've also worked with companies from the US, Europe, Russia, South Korea, and Japan. DeepSeek admitted that an earlier version was trained on part of our collection, though they're tight-lipped about their latest model (probably also trained on our data though).

If the West wants to stay ahead in the race of LLMs, and ultimately, AGI, it needs to reconsider its position on copyright, and soon. Whether you agree with us or not on our moral case, this is now becoming a case of economics, and even of national security. All power blocs are building artificial super-scientists, super-hackers, and super-militaries. Freedom of information is becoming a matter of survival for these countries — even a matter of national security.

Our team is from all over the world, and we don't have a particular alignment. But we'd encourage countries with strong copyright laws to use this existential threat to reform them. So what to do?

Our first recommendation is straightforward: shorten the copyright term. In the US, copyright is granted for 70 years after the author's death. This is absurd. We can bring this in line with patents, which are granted for 20 years after filing. This should be more than enough time for authors of books, papers, music, art, and other creative works, to get fully compensated for their efforts (including longer-term projects such as movie adaptations).

Then, at a minimum, policymakers should include carve-outs for the mass-preservation and dissemination of texts. If lost revenue from individual customers is the main worry, personal-level distribution could remain prohibited. In turn, those capable of managing vast repositories — companies training LLMs, along with libraries and other archives — would be covered by these exceptions.

Some countries are already doing a version of this. TorrentFreak reported that China and Japan have introduced AI exceptions to their copyright laws. It is unclear to us how this interacts with international treaties, but it certainly gives cover to their domestic companies, which explains what we've been seeing.

As for Anna's Archive — we will continue our underground work rooted in moral conviction. Yet our greatest wish is to enter the light, and amplify our impact legally. Please reform copyright.

- Anna and the team (Reddit, Telegram)

Read the companion articles by TorrentFreak: first, second

[cathgrl]

With the recent executive order eliminating federal funding for libraries and museums, this has ramifications for interlibrary loan services. My school library website will have limited issues as far as I am concerned. Intastate interlibrary loan availability will be affected, according to my school library personnel (I live out of state) and my state library personnel. Thank goodness there are books available at isidore.co and other locations that are downloadable. Archive.org had issues with hackers in fall 2024 that had the website unavailable for weeks.

[DrKwasniewski]

Dear Editors of This Website:

As the publisher of Os Justi Press books, I ask you kindly to remove from this site the titles published by us. That would include David Hunt's "Something for Nothing?"

Publishing is actually a business, and a legitimate one at that, which has been around for centuries. Small Catholic publishers already have a difficult enough time making ends meet without their products being taken from them and made available for free, contrary to the statement on the copyright page that unauthorized reproduction is prohibited by law. Moreover, authors who work hard at their books deserve to earn royalties from them.

I am all in favor of sharing out-of-copyright material, but copyrights should be respected, since otherwise smaller publishers will simply go out of business altogether, and there will be no incentive to produce publications that require funding (vs. independent wealth!).

Os Justi Press strives to set reasonable prices for all its ebooks (usually $9.95), for paperbacks (usually $12.95 to $19.95), and for hardcovers (usually $24.95 to $29.95). We are not like Oxford, Cambridge, Brill, et al. who will charge $50 for a paperback or $150 for a hardcover. Please help us to keep our prices down and our catalogue flourishing.

God Bless,
Dr. Peter Kwasniewski
info@osjustipress.com

[Geremia]

I ask you kindly to remove from this site the titles published by us. That would include David Hunt's "Something for Nothing?"

I'll gladly remove books of those who care more about making a profit than disseminating knowledge and truth.

[DrKwasniewski]

First of all, thank you for complying with my request. I appreciate it.

You speak as if these two goals - disseminating truth and running a business - are utterly incompatible. That's absurd on the face of it, otherwise the publishing business would never have existed.

I suggest you read Pius V's Quo Primum and Quod a Nobis, where he spends a surprising amount of time talking about publishers. Why? Because it was a business back then: there had to be considerable investment in making books, and the laborer is worthy of his wage, as someone far more important than Pius V once said.

Socrates explained that when a teacher is paid, he is not paid for his wisdom - that is sophistry - but in order to live so that he can pursue the truth. This is true of any honest laborer in the intellectual vineyard. On your logic, every professor should be volunteering his time; after all, anything else would be "caring more for money than for truth."

I suggest that the Catholic "both/and" is operative. If someone is studying usury, they should be willing to plunk down $10 for an ebook or $18 for a paperback. That is how it remains possible for the David Hunts and Peter Kwasniewskis of the world to continue to research and publish good books.

God bless you.

[Geremia]

You speak as if these two goals - disseminating truth and running a business - are utterly incompatible. [...] the publishing business [...]

Sharing/copying ≠ publishing.

the laborer is worthy of his wage

Authors should be supported.
Eamonn A. Clark writes at the beginning of his New Questions, Old Answers: Catholic Morals and Natural Family Planning:

FREELY I RECEIVED, FREELY I GIVE (CF. MATTHEW 10:8)
I DO NOT "SELL" THEOLOGY. PLEASE DONATE AT WHATEVER LEVEL YOU
CAN TO SUPPORT MY WORK!
SCAN THE QR CODE OR USE THE LINK (COPY AND PASTE IF NEEDED)...
IF YOU HAVE TROUBLE SENDING A DONATION, PLEASE CONTACT ME WITH
THE EMAIL ADDRESS IN THE BACK OF THE BOOK.
THANK YOU!

Pius V's Quo Primum and Quod a Nobis

Nothing mentioned about making a profit there.

Also, I'm giving you free advertising.