Published Author Decries Feds Seizing Online Site Full Of Unauthorized Digital Books
A few weeks ago the FBI and DOJ seized a bunch of domain names associated with Z-Library, an online repository of millions of unauthorized copies of ebooks. The DOJ also issued an indictment of the two Russian nationals (who were arrested in Argentina), who were accused of running the site. I still have significant reservations about the constitutionality of seizing domain names over copyright infringement claims, but if you're going to run a site like that, it shouldn't be much of a surprise that eventually the US government is going to go after it.
That said, I was fascinated by a piece by author Alison Rumfitt over at Dazed coming to a defense of Z-Library, and suggesting that other authors should do the same. She notes that she supports the site, even if she did lose revenue from people downloading her books from it:
The site probably did lose me some revenue, but I don't think it would have been all that much: I get a certain small amount for every book bought by a shop, rather than for every book actually sold. This builds up and then twice a year I get sent a cheque. That being said, even if Z-Library did lose me a large amount of income, I don't think I'd like to see it destroyed in my name
She notes that there are perfectly good, none theft" reasons why people might want to download such ebooks:
I think the most telling thing is the use of steal as a verb. Is piracy stealing? I know that old, quite-scary video that played on VHSs said so, but is it actually stealing? Theft? Pirating books over websites such as Z-Library is simple to a degree where I couldn't call it that. When I worked as a carer, the 70-year-old man I worked for used the site to get ebooks of books which he already had in his physical collection but was unable to read due to disability. I'm not sure I'd say he was stealing those books, he already owned them after all.
As she notes, getting words out there and more widely available should be seen as a societal good:
Of course, specifics are specifics for a reason; the majority of people downloading from Z-Library are likely not people in that position. Mostly they're people trying to get books they want to read for no money. But even then, I'm not sure I can call that stealing - the hunger to read is something to be encouraged, something which, in my opinion, is a societal good; even as publishing grows ever more overtly capitalist and monopolised, reading still thrives, and piracy allows it to take place despite borders and Digital Rights Management. Not everyone has access to a library, and not every library in the world is well-stocked.
Indeed, she notes that copyright is really there to help the publishers way more than the authors themselves:
I do understand the position of some authors who would disagree with me here. I get why authors who are trying to make a living inside the machinery of capitalism might feel personally affronted when people access their work for free - many of us are lacking in money and power, even if people often assume we have both in spades. But the solution, this solution, the destruction of accessibility to works and the arrests of individuals by US forces, is far worse than the problem. When we side with the idea of copyright, we side with the structure that hurts authors in a far deeper way than losing us sales; we side with the publishers who, through their endless trend-chasing, leave many brilliant writers behind in the dust. There are books currently out-of-print in the UK and America that I could access there, such as the works of subversive writer Heather Lewis or a good portion of Samuel R Delaney's output. It's possible to believe that authors deserve fair treatment and pay and to take a more nuanced approach to this issue; not only possible, in fact, it might well be the only way forward.
We've noted for years now that in the book world, while there certainly are some authors who completely go along with the copyright maximalist view, others are a lot more nuanced. Many authors are horrified by what publishers are doing in their name using copyright as an excuse. This has been true for years. Remember famed author Paulo Coelho's discussion on why he loves" those who pirate his works? He had even gone so far as to pirate" his own works... and found that it actually helped sales!
Copyright is a blunt instrument, and it's frequently used in problematic ways. In a time when we're (1) enabling greater access to information and (2) creating new and better ways to support creators (often which don't rely on copyright at all), it really does seem like it's time to reconsider how copyright itself works. In its current form it is a legacy tool that supports gatekeepers (book publishers, record labels, movie studios) way more than it helps actual creators. And that's not even getting to how it harms the fans themselves, by assuming, upfront, that they must be criminals or have criminal intent for merely wanting to share amazing creativity and artwork that they enjoy.