Creative Commons licensing options for volunteers?

Comments about LibriVox? Suggestions to improve things? News?
Post Reply
dcelkind
Posts: 110
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 11:46 am
Location: Bowling Green, KY, USA
Contact:

Post by dcelkind »

Howdy folks,

I am curious to know how others feel about Audible and other similar companies taking LibriVox audio books and selling them even though they are freely available on LibriVox. As it stands, because LibriVox audio books are in the public domain, this practice by Audible is entirely legal. And Audible, which is owned by Amazon, has the resources to out-advertise LibriVox (or the Internet Archive, which hosts LibriVox recordings). In particular, they can pay to push their versions to the top of Google search results.

It is true that most LibriVox recorders are not interested in hiring an expensive copyright lawyer to pursue restitution and damages against someone infringing on an audio book copyright (of a work that they did not write!). It is also true that most LibriVox recorders are freely giving their voice to many silent works, without any possessive feeling over what happens to the file afterwards.

On the other hand, some volunteers - I am one - might feel hurt at the idea that someone could unwittingly pay for what they meant to share freely. Audible and other companies that do this seem to be profiteering off the ignorance (i.e. the imperfect information) of consumers. Some folks lending their voices to works might prefer to license their recordings under a creative commons license like one of the ones listed here: https://creativecommons.org/about/cclicenses/. That would make Audible's practice illegal, so that they could be threatened with action if they continued to profiteer off of our donations to the public good. Usually, that is enough of a deterrent to prevent such shady business practices. And it would prevent the harm, small though it may be in one or two instances (but add it up over many consumers!), of someone buying what they could otherwise find for free.

It is true that creative commons licenses are, in essence, a restriction on what can be done with a work. There is an element of possessiveness to imposing anything but a public domain license. But the claim of a creative commons license is that it, and derivative works, belong to the public, not to any private company.

It is also true that creative commons licenses are temporary. In the long run, those works will likewise enter the public domain. But this would be a temporary prevention of profiteering by Audible and company - and hopefully, in that long run, the word would get out about the good people at LibriVox, the Internet Archive, and other public-serving repositories, so that there would be little-to-no opportunity to profiteer off of the intended generosity of others.

In brief, I wonder if LibriVox would be open to allowing recorders and/or proof listeners to elect one or more creative commons licenses in addition to the public domain licensing that is currently standard. Of course that might require some discussion with the Internet Archive folks, since I think they host LibriVox's recordings. And let me hasten to add: I am in no way a person with authority or control at LibriVox or at the Internet Archive - I am just a volunteer recorder with LibriVox.

Thanks kindly! I look forward to hearing what you all think.

Yours Truly,
Landon
"We can suggest no substitute for 'metaphysical'." The King's English, 'Malaprops'
https://www.landondcelkind.com
annise
LibriVox Admin Team
Posts: 38542
Joined: April 3rd, 2008, 3:55 am
Location: Melbourne,Australia

Post by annise »

This has been discussed before fully - I'll see if I can find the thread.

Anne
mightyfelix
LibriVox Admin Team
Posts: 11082
Joined: August 7th, 2016, 6:39 pm

Post by mightyfelix »

This has been brought up repeatedly before, and discussed extensively. If you search the forums, you could probably find more than you'd care to read, still lurking about somewhere.

LibriVox's policy has been, is, and will continue to be, to release all recordings to the public domain. We are aware that some companies have been taking advantage of this in an unethical (though, as you say, not illegal) manner. But changing from public domain to creative commons would likely not solve this problem. Instead, it would create numerous other problems. If an infringement happened, who would take action against it? How? And with what funds? And what would we do about the many thousands of recordings out there already, which all state "ALL LibriVox recordings are in the public domain?"

It is understandable that many people don't want to risk their donated work being taken advantage of. If that's the case, you can make your own recordings and upload them to Internet Archive yourself with a CC license, without putting them under the LV umbrella.
dcelkind
Posts: 110
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 11:46 am
Location: Bowling Green, KY, USA
Contact:

Post by dcelkind »

Howdy Anne and Devorah,

Thanks for the quick replies. A link to the relevant forum would be helpful. A search for "licensing" and "creative commons", etc., produced far too many results to sift through, and all were irrelevant to this issue. The one thing that I did find was the LibriVox Wiki to a forum post from over ten years ago: https://wiki.librivox.org/index.php?title=Why_Public_Domain_and_not_a_Creative_Commons_license%3F. There is a long thread there to be sure. But I daresay the issue might be revisited with changes in streaming technology and with the rise of monopolistic corporations who can certainly propagandize their services with deeper pockets than we have (though we might nonetheless be more effective - there is no better advertising than doing a good job and having a friend recommend something!). Indeed, most of the discussion continues only up to 2008, with a few scattered posts up to June 16th, 2015.

It may be that I do exactly as Devorah suggests, and start uploading the recordings without a proof listener under different licensing, etc., but I thought to ask what others thought. I am open to being convinced, and indeed, I do not have a hard stance on this issue as yet. Regarding the questions that Devorah raises:
  • Infringements are policed and/or enforced by the copyright holder or their agent. LibriVox would not ever be enforcing a copyright action under a CC license unless they produced the relevant content and held the copyright to the content. Individual volunteers would be responsible for doing so or not as they please.
  • Usually, a copyright infringement is stopped with a cease-and-desist letter. This is usually quite effective because, if the infringement knowingly continues at that point, then often an attorney can collect attorney's fees for representing an individual in such a case, and on occasion damages (if the infringement is knowing, egregiously massive or widespread, etc.). So the pockets of a volunteer wouldn't have to be deep at all to follow through on such a letter, but in practice it likely wouldn't be necessary.
  • Nobody can undo a copyright license once it is done. It can only expire, and cannot be altered. The copyright holder and/or their agent can elect not to enforce it as the copyright holder likes. But you cannot retroactively change the copyright on public domain works already released. This would only be an option for future works.
I am not opposed to LibriVox's current policy. But it would be nice to think hard about the relatively new problems posed by changes in technology, and whether those warrant changes in practice. Maybe they do not - there are many good things to be said for being public domain and not minding if one's recording is sold. The only person harmed by this practice is the purchaser (well, and everyone who suffers under the effective realization of Amazon's monopolistic ambitions - they want to own as much content as possible, and be one of the sole distributors, like many other such companies who are similarly harmful but less successful in their aims), and it is on the behalf of such purchasers that I am (re-)raising the question at all.

Yours Truly,
Landon
"We can suggest no substitute for 'metaphysical'." The King's English, 'Malaprops'
https://www.landondcelkind.com
annise
LibriVox Admin Team
Posts: 38542
Joined: April 3rd, 2008, 3:55 am
Location: Melbourne,Australia

Post by annise »

The purchaser only suffers because they chose to :D. No one is making them use it.

Anne
k5hsj
Posts: 809
Joined: August 17th, 2010, 12:02 am
Location: Point Richmond, CA

Post by k5hsj »

Landon,

Check out viewtopic.php?f=24&t=70888 for a recent (2018) pretty extensive discussion of this issue, which includes thoughts from our founding father, Hugh.

HTH,

Winston
Be kind. Be interesting. Be useful. Morality ain't hard.--Jack Butler, Living in Little Rock with Miss Little Rock
dcelkind
Posts: 110
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 11:46 am
Location: Bowling Green, KY, USA
Contact:

Post by dcelkind »

Howdy Winston,

Thanks for this thread. From that thread, Peter's suggestion of reposting the audio book at some wonderfully low price like a penny, perhaps with info directing them to the LibriVox and Internet Archive free versions, seems like the right idea. I'll look into how users can do this on Audible, etc.

Yours Truly,
Landon
"We can suggest no substitute for 'metaphysical'." The King's English, 'Malaprops'
https://www.landondcelkind.com
schrm
Posts: 4210
Joined: February 10th, 2018, 11:02 am
Location: Austria

Post by schrm »

from teh answers i got from audibles customer services and legal departments, you are free to report these books, as they are not wished for and violating audibles content rules and tos.
in short: they don't want old works.
cheers
wolfi
reader/12275
Post Reply