Screenshot of the original website of Z-Library. The website calls itself "the largest digital library in the world" in the following introduction.
However, according to the latest news from the US Department of Justice, two founders of the website have been arrested in Argentina, facing many charges such as "copyright infringement, wire transfer fraud and money laundering", and the case is still under trial. In fact, in the past twenty years, a series of "shadow libraries" (usually referring to websites that collect a large number of copyrighted books and open them to the public for free, and "shadow" also means that they may be in an illegal gray area) have appeared one after another-Gigapedia, Kolkhoz, Librusec, and Lib.gen and Sci-Hub, which are facing dissolution or closure many times recently. If this is really a black-and-white copyright dispute, why are these websites labeled as "digital piracy" and have been repeatedly supported in the public opinion field?
In the past month, after Z-Library was shut down, there was a big discussion about "digital copyright and knowledge opening" on foreign social media. On the one hand, the high price of resources paid year after year makes readers complain, and on the other hand, publishing companies that insist on "copyright first" constantly launch rights protection campaigns, echoing the storm caused by "China Knowledge Network" in April this year. It is worth noting that in this round of confrontation, more and more creators came to the stage from behind the scenes. This time, many of them stood on the opposite side of publishers who claimed to "protect their own rights and interests" and questioned that the existing "copyright structure" did more harm to authors than the profits lost by "piracy". These voices have once again caused people to think about whose rights and interests are protected by "copyright" in actual operation.
When we sort out the relevant disputes, we will find that in the storm surrounding the closure of Z-Library, people are also arguing with the existing legal publishing model when facing the related problems of piracy ethics, and the latter provides very limited remuneration for the original author or contributor most of the time. The deeper question is whether knowledge, as a resource that can be copied accurately and infinitely, should be restricted by "absolute ownership". Under the background of the current global support for open access movement, the court's final ruling on the Z-Library case may become a watershed event with weathervane significance.
Iron-clad websites and mobile domain names: the origin and self-replication of "shadow library"
"This is destined to be a copyright war that cannot be won." The American monthly magazine Reason believes that it is almost impossible to eradicate this digital library represented by Z-Library. As long as people need free information, modern technology and digital ecosystem will provide it. In the end, this series of actions will end at a high price, which is time-consuming and labor-intensive.
Although the latest data released by Z-Library shows that as of June 2022 12, the website has collected more than10.45 million books and 84.83 million articles, which is called "the largest digital library in the world", but this rather amazing collection is the result of rapid accumulation in just over ten years. As early as 2009, Z-Library made its debut as a mirror version of Lib, another well-known e-book sharing platform. Together with Sci-Hub, it is called the three world-famous online databases. They share resources with each other and the servers are distributed in many parts of the world. According to Alexandra Elbakyan, a neuroscientist in Kazakhstan who founded Sci-Hub, when someone requests an article, the system will first search for Lib. Gender database. However, if the article is not available, the system will log in to the journal website with the donated password, download the article, and provide it to the user who requested it and the main database at the same time.
This interconnection structure can minimize the space for backing up data, and at the same time, even if the disk containing related databases is lost, it can continue to run. Once the domain name is blocked, some users can quickly Luo Zhi an unblocked link list and then take it to the banned website through another digital path. These endless mirror websites are like the mythical "hydra". Even if the government can close down a branch, they can quickly rebuild the collection by establishing a new domain name.
Sci-Hub interface.
It is worth noting that there are many shadow libraries, including Lib. Gen and Sci-Hub, almost all started their businesses in Russian. Lib.ru is one of the earliest shadow libraries, which was founded by a Russian scholar. In the past twenty years, a series of "libraries" have appeared in the Internet world, such as ——Gigapedia, Kolkhoz, Librusec and so on. These collections are mainly in Russian, and then gradually developed into resource libraries containing other languages. The tradition of "openness" comes from "restriction". Balázs Bodó, a piracy researcher at the University of Amsterdam, believes that the loose copyright law and weak intellectual property protection rules make shadow libraries exist and flourish in Russia. What's more, there are some earliest desktops and databases in the world.
Before the 1990s, more than 68% families in large and medium-sized cities in the Soviet Union bought books on the black market, and local scholars evaded government scrutiny through underground publications all the year round. Even after the disintegration of 199 1 Soviet Union, the censorship system officially ended, but the state's funding for the publishing industry also ended. The previous political restrictions were replaced by economic restrictions, and the large-scale unemployment, wage decline and the resulting decrease in disposable income further weakened the transition to a market-oriented publishing model. At the same time, copyright protection in Russia has always been looser than in other places. Before universal copyright convention was signed, his works could be used "for free" in Russia 15 years after the author's death.
All these make the shadow library take the aura of "altruism". Since its birth, it has been regarded as the opposite of official book culture and publishing business model. If the potential risks of personal information security are put aside, it is really free, bottom-up and uncensored. In another study published in 2020, Bodo conducted a "supply-side analysis" of the access records of the "shadow library" and found that a large part of the downloads were concentrated on legal but inaccessible works. "The emergence of the black market, whether it is culture, drugs or weapons, is always a sign and warning signal of the friction between supply and demand." When there is a significant difference between what is legally available and what is needed, the "cultural black market" will compete with the established and recognized "cultural intermediary" here and surpass the competition. Under this constant threat of survival, business models and institutions have to adapt step by step, or actively evolve or passively withdraw.
Stills of the documentary "Edge" (20 17).
"Don't call me by my name": the questioning voice of academics and creators
Long before Z-Library was closed, the shadow library had become a thorn in the side of large publishing houses and periodicals. In 20 15, the appeals court of Elsevier, one of the largest academic publishers in the United States, tried to close two of the most popular libraries, Sci-Hub and Lib. Gen 2065 438+07, the US District Court of new york ruled that Sci-Hub violated the US copyright law and awarded Elsevier150,000 USD as compensation. In 2020, Elsevier, American Chemical Society (ACS) and American publisher Wiley filed another lawsuit against Sci-Hub in Delhi High Court, and named its founder Elbakinyi as the defendant. In their repeated denunciations, they insisted that the shadow library not only caused economic losses to publishers, but also endangered the interests of book authors and researchers.
However, this statement has not been unanimously supported, at least from the academic community. On 20 15, many scholars, including the above-mentioned piracy researcher Bodo, signed an open letter in support of the shadow library. In their letter, they bluntly said that the above lawsuit was actually a "heavy blow" to researchers. Take Elsevier as an example, its annual profit rate of 37% is in sharp contrast with the rising tuition fees, the expanding student loan debt and the meager salary of part-time teachers. Elsevier has some of the largest databases of academic materials, but the authorized price of these materials is so high that even Harvard University, the richest university in the north of the world, once complained that it can't afford it.
Robert darnton, former director of Harvard Library, said: "Our teachers do research, write papers, comment on other researchers' papers, and serve on the editorial board, all of which are free ... and then we have to buy back the fruits of our labor at outrageous prices. "If you cancel the" bundled "subscription, the average cost of journal articles is generally around $30. In addition, it may be difficult to know whether the study is relevant just by reading the abstract. This forces scholars and students to pay before they know whether they really need to read this paper. The pricing of journal articles makes it difficult for many scholars around the world-and all non-scholars-to enter them, thus making them a symbol of privilege.
Faced with this situation, in the early 1990s, there was a wave of "open access" in academic circles. Supporters' demands are simple, because the cost of making digital copies is almost zero, and they call for academic articles to be free and open. Wikipedia, which is widely used today, is a practical attempt of this idea. About two years after the open access movement, several universities in the United States threatened to cancel subscriptions to academic journals to protest against excessive pricing.
However, this wave has so far failed to bring the shadow library to the sun. One of The New York Times's comments did not shy away from this complexity. On the one hand, the threat of schools led publishers to redesign their business model, and finally introduced the so-called "author pay", that is, authors had to pay journals for publishing articles online. On the other hand, the real obstacle to open access actually comes from within academia. Under the existing evaluation mechanism, scholars want to gain an advantage in the competition of teachers' posts, promotion, tenure and funding application, and their environment will be judged according to their published articles. Those prestigious journals, such as Cell, Nature and The Lancet, often protect their contents best, and universities often show off their academic strength by the number of articles published in these journals. "The real culprit is the leaders of the scientific community-Nobel scientists, heads of institutions, university presidents-who have the ability to change the status quo, but never face up to this problem, partly because they also constitute.
For researchers who live in universities, there are even fewer shadow libraries. Gautam bhatia, an Indian jurist, even quoted the shadow library in his 20 19 work "A Changing Constitution". He admitted that there was no freedom. Gen, this book won't be published. "Doing academic work outside the closed area of a university is like trying to swim with only one arm and one leg."
Compared with academic researchers, the author's previous resistance to the photo library is relatively consistent. After all, the author does not rely on peer review and citation, but on the rising sales data to supply material nutrients for his creation, and at the same time, he also uses these data to win more publishing opportunities. However, it is worth noting that in recent years, many book authors have expressed their views and have reservations about closing the shadow library. Bhatia, who published "Changing the Constitution", is also a science fiction writer. His novel The Wall can be downloaded from Z-Library before. In this regard, he quipped: "I don't have any judgment on those who download e-books, because you know, they will spend money after all."
Another part of the creators who oppose the closure of the photo library are actually weighing the pros and cons. Alison Rumitt, an American freelance writer, believes that although the existence of this website has caused her to lose part of her income, the so-called "solution" is far worse than the problem itself compared with cutting off the access channels of her works and arresting individuals by the US. She admits that she will also go to the shadow library to download out-of-print works. For writers trying to make a living in the capitalist machine, the profit of a single book is too limited, and the existing "copyright structure" may harm the author far more than the profit lost by "piracy". Rumit said that instead of attacking the shadow library in the name of protecting the author, it is better to ensure that the author can get a fairer treatment first. "This is probably the only solution at present."
Stills of the documentary "Edge" (20 17).
"Copyright" Debate: Digital Piracy? Unreasonable monopoly
Although there are many voices against closing Z-Library, the shadow library itself has long been controversial. Justin Spence of the US Intellectual Property Registry said that the shadow library represented by Sci-Hub is promoting the legality of "piracy", which conveys the wrong idea that "any knowledge should be free". However, the motivation of academic production and exchange is actually very complicated, and this concept of "altruism" blurs the cost. Spencer admits that it is important for everyone to acquire knowledge at a reasonable price, but it should not be pushed to the extreme, so that all means to achieve this goal are acceptable.
So, does the shadow library actually involve "piracy" infringement? In the Shadow Library: Copyright Infringement or Public Interest? Kavya Jha compares the plagiarism case of Delhi University in India in 20 16. Oxford University Press jointly sued the copy shop in Delhi for copyright infringement. The defendant argued that the copied materials were used for teaching reference, and only a few books were copied, which did not affect the plaintiff's book market. In the end, the court ruled that the defendant won the case on the grounds that "the use of copyrighted works is fair and reasonable for educational purposes". But slightly different, in the case represented by Z-Library, the shadow library could not prove that the information it provided was not used for commercial research.
Shadow Library (by Joe Karaganis) studies and compares the ways and present situation of knowledge sharing around the world.
At the same time, another problem involved in the photo library is the judgment of "profit". Kabiya Jia pointed out that the purpose of most pirated websites is not to provide free content but to make money. However, the shadow library is not for profit. In order to refute this point, publishers claim that these websites have received high donations, which is enough to explain their profit motive. However, whether business motivation can be equated with accepting donations is debatable. In addition, not all resources are protected by copyright.
In addition to the dispute over the definition of "piracy", the photo library is still restarting again and again. The crux of this is the accessibility of resources or the class nature of knowledge itself. As mentioned above, in the usage record of the photo library, a large part of downloads are concentrated on those legal but inaccessible works. This "inaccessibility" is partly due to the imbalance of resources. In remote areas, "it is difficult to buy the books you need in the local bookstore, even if you can buy them remotely, you will have to wait for several months to receive them", or "out of print materials". At the same time, Vivek Jayaram, a professor of intellectual property at the University of Miami Law School, pointed out that the high access price also raised questions-"Information should not be limited to those who have enough privileges to afford it".
The related debate gradually rose to the issue of "copyright" itself. American liberal lawyer Stephen kinsella even bluntly said that copyright is an unreasonable monopoly granted by government legislation. Different from competitive and exclusive "scarce physical objects", words or ideas can be reproduced accurately and infinitely, and should belong to the category of public goods. What's more, many times "copyright" does not protect the interests of creators, but turns publishers into partial owners of others' "property". In 2023, the publishing department of Elsevier, headquartered in the Netherlands, reported a profit of about US$ 65,438+0,654,388+0 billion and a revenue of US$ 3 billion. According to the financial report of China HowNet, its net profit in 2023 was 65.438+0.94 billion yuan, and its gross profit rate was as high as 53.35%, reaching 72% at the peak since 2005, and the author's share of income was negligible.
Screenshot of Tongfang Wang Zhi's 2023 financial report. (Information comes from Tongfang's financial report)
In addition, Rationality magazine commented that from the utilitarian point of view, the provisions of copyright were originally intended to "promote the progress of science and practical art", but in fact, closing the "shadow library" did more harm than good, because the latter promoted research to a great extent. As The The Lancet said in an open letter on 20 16, such websites may be of great benefit to doctors in Peru and other places, where few doctors can access "the documents and information they need to take care of more and more patients with various diseases". During the COVID-19 epidemic, this argument became more powerful.
All these make the final decision of the Z-Library case attract much attention. As carbia Jia said, in the context of increasing global support for the open access movement, every time a court decides such a case, it may become a watershed event with weathervane significance. Returning to the "Delhi photocopying case", the explanation in the court decision may still be worth thinking about: "Copyright, especially the copyright of written works, is not an inevitable, sacred or natural right, giving the author absolute ownership of his creation ... The purpose of copyright is to promote rather than hinder the acquisition of knowledge. Its purpose is to stimulate the creative activities of authors and inventors and ultimately benefit the public. "
Reference link:
The closure of 1.Z-Library makes users scramble to find alternatives.
698 18/life style/z-library-shut down-leaves-users-scrambling-to-find-alternatives/
2. The library Z was banned, and the students went crazy.
Daily-Stars-Books/News /z- Library-Forbidden-Students-Fanaticism -3 16255 1
3. The ban on shadow libraries set publishers against free information activists.
Sci-tech/technology/a-shadow-library-ban-pits-publishers-against-free-information-activists.
You can't stop pirated libraries.
2022/07/24/ You Can't Stop Piracy-Library/
5. "Free library of free people": How the "shadow" library of popular literature bypasses the digital barrier and redefines the legitimacy of contemporary Russia.
ojs/index . PHP/FM/article/download/ 1 17 15/ 10 136？ Inline = 1 # Author
6. Why is the large shadow library Russian?
Why is the large shadow library Russian?
7. Defend Z Library and Book Piracy
life-culture/article/57545/ 1/in-defense-of-pirate-and-z-library-shut-down-Alison-rumfitt-writer-author
8. Should all research papers be free?
20 16/03/ 13/opinion/Sunday/should-all-research-papers-be-free . html
9. Shadow Library: Copyright Infringement or Public Interest?
Shadow Library: Copyright Infringement or Public Interest?
Author/Lu Shen
Editor/Li Yongbo
Proofreading/Wang Xin
If you have any questions about the self-taught/successful examination, don't know the contents of the test sites and the local policies of the self-taught/successful examination, click on Mr. official website at the bottom to get the review materials for free: /xl/