directive in Bodo 2015
nd guides to the knowledge stored in the stacks. If they want to survive, they
need to find their role and position in a network of institutions, where everyone else is engaged in
activities that overlap with the historic functions of the library. Just like the books themselves, the power
that came from the privileged access to books is in part dispersed among the countless nodes in the
knowledge and learning networks, and in part is being captured by those who control the digital rights to
digitize and distribute books in the digital era.
One of the main reasons why libraries are trying to redefine themselves as providers of ancillary services
is because the lack of digital lending rights prevents them from competing on their own traditional home
turf - in giving free access to knowledge. The traditional legal limitations and exceptions to copyright that
enabled libraries to fulfill their role in the analogue world do not apply in the digital realm. In the
European Union, the Infosoc Directive (“Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of
copyright and related rights in the information society,” 2001) allows for libraries to create digital copies
for preservation, indexing and similar purposes and allows for the display of digital copies on their
premises for research and personal study (Triaille et al., 2013). While in theory these rights provide for
12
Bodó B. (2015): Libraries in the post-scarcity era.
in: Porsdam (ed): Copyrighting Creativity: Creative values, Cultural Heritage Institutions and Systems of Intellectual Property, Ashgate
the core library services in the digital domain, their practical usefulness is rather limited, as off-premises
e-lending of copyrighted works is in most cases6 only possible through individual license agreements with
publishers.
Under such circumstances libraries complain that they cannot fulfill their public interest mission in the
digital era. What libraries are allowed to do under their own under current limitations and e
ons (Rosati, 2014a).
US libraries face a similar situation, both in terms of the narrowly defined exceptions in which libraries
can operate, and the huge uncertainty regarding the limits of fair use in the digital library context. US
rights holders challenged both Google’s (Authors Guild v Google) and the libraries (Authors Guild v
HathiTrust) rights to digitize copyrighted works. While there seems to be a consensus of courts that the
mass digitization conducted by these institutions was fair use (Diaz, 2013; Rosati, 2014c; Samuelson,
2014), the accessibility of the scanned works is still heavily limited, subject to licenses from publishers,
the existence of print copies at the library and the institutional membership held by prospective readers.
While in the highly competitive US e-book market many commercial intermediaries offer e-lending
6
The notable exception being orphan works which are presumed to be still copyrighted, but without an identifiable
rights owner. In the EU, the Directive 2012/28/EU on certain permitted uses of orphan works in theory eases access
to such works, but in practice its practical impact is limited by the many constraints among its provisions. Lacking
any orphan works legislation and the Google Book Settlement still in limbo, the US is even farther from making
orphan works generally accessible to the public.
13
Bodó B. (2015): Libraries in the post-scarcity era.
in: Porsdam (ed): Copyrighting Creativity: Creative values, Cultural Heritage Institutions and Systems of Intellectual Property, Ashgate
licenses to e-book catalogues of various sizes, these arrangements also carry the danger of a commercial
lock-in of the access to digital works, and render libraries dependent upon the services of commercial
providers who may or may not be the best defenders of public interest (OECD, 2012).
Shadow libraries like Aleph are called into existence by the vacuum that was left behind by the collapse
of libraries in the digital sphere and by the inabili
). A szerzői jog kalózai. Budapest: Typotex.
Bodó, B. (2011b). Coda: A Short History of Book Piracy. In J. Karaganis (Ed.), Media Piracy in
Emerging Economies. New York: Social Science Research Council.
Bodó, B. (forthcoming). Piracy vs privacy–the analysis of Piratebrowser. IJOC.
Commission on the Future of the Library. (2013). Report of the Commission on the Future of the UC
Berkeley Library. Berkeley: UC Berkeley.
Committee on the Public Libraries in the Knowledge Society. (2010). The Public Libraries in the
Knowledge Society. Copenhagen: Kulturstyrelsen.
Darnton, R. (1982). The literary underground of the Old Regime. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University
Press.
Darnton, R. (2003). The Science of Piracy: A Crucial Ingredient in Eighteenth-Century Publishing.
Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century, 12, 3–29.
Diaz, A. S. (2013). Fair Use & Mass Digitization: The Future of Copy-Dependent Technologies after
Authors Guild v. Hathitrust. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 23.
Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the
information society. (2001). Official Journal L, 167, 10–19.
Elst, M. (2005). Copyright, freedom of speech, and cultural policy in the Russian Federation.
Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff.
Ermolaev, H. (1997). Censorship in Soviet Literature: 1917-1991. Rowman & Littlefield.
Friedberg, M., Watanabe, M., & Nakamoto, N. (1984). The Soviet Book Market: Supply and Demand.
Acta Slavica Iaponica, 2, 177–192.
Giblin, R. (2011). Code Wars: 10 Years of P2P Software Litigation. Cheltenham, UK ; Northampton,
MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
17
Bodó B. (2015): Libraries in the post-scarcity era.
in: Porsdam (ed): Copyrighting Creativity: Creative values, Cultural Heritage Institutions and Systems of Intellectual Property, Ashgate
Johns, A. (2010). Piracy: The Intellectual Property Wars from Gutenberg to Gates. University Of
Chicago Press.
Judge, C. B. (1934). Elizabethan book-pirates. Cambridge: Harvard U
l. Prop. L.,
10, 319.
Samuelson, P. (2014). Mass Digitization as Fair Use. Communications of the ACM, 57(3), 20–22.
Schultz, M. F. (2007). Copynorms: Copyright Law and Social Norms. Intellectual Property And
Information Wealth v01, 1, 201.
Sezneva, O. (2012). The pirates of Nevskii Prospekt: Intellectual property, piracy and institutional
diffusion in Russia. Poetics, 40(2), 150–166.
Solly, E. (1885). Henry Hills, the Pirate Printer. Antiquary, xi, 151–154.
Stelmakh, V. D. (2001). Reading in the Context of Censorship in the Soviet Union. Libraries & Culture,
36(1), 143–151.
Suber,
P.
(2013).
Open
Access
(Vol.
1).
Cambridge,
MA:
The
MIT
Press.
doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2012.2226094
Swartz,
A.
(2008).
Guerilla
Open
Access
Manifesto.
Aaron
Swartz.
Retrieved
from
https://archive.org/stream/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto/Goamjuly2008_djvu.txt
Triaille, J.-P., Dusollier, S., Depreeuw, S., Hubin, J.-B., Coppens, F., & Francquen, A. de. (2013). Study
on the application of Directive 2001/29/EC on copyright and related rights in the information society (the
“Infosoc Directive”). European Union.
Wittmann, R. (2004). Highwaymen or Heroes of Enlightenment? Viennese and South German Pirates and
the German Market. Paper presented at the History of Books and Intellectual History conference.
Princeton University.
Yu, P. K. (2000). From Pirates to Partners: Protecting Intellectual Property in China in the Twenty-First
Century.
American
University
Law,
50.
Retrieved
from
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=245548
Мошков, М. (1999). Что вы все о копирайте. Лучше бы книжку почитали (Библиотеке копирайт не
враг). Компьютерры, (300).
19
Display 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 ALL characters around the word.