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...), 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)