List of surreptitious use of our files

[Beeswaxcandle]

Over at Wikisource we face the same issues. We put work into getting works scanned, proofread and validated, then someone decides to grab the work and sell it. Often the files are just a mirror with our contributions listed, but sometimes they're repackaged to varying degrees of beauty. When we contribute it is clear that our contributions go out there free for others to use and re-use as they see fit. But, like here, we know that our volunteer contributions are rescuing books that were once stuck in a rare books room in an obscure library and making them available once again.

One such work (Hokitika, New Zealand: The Birth of a Borough) that we put on English Wikisource has been accessed via the NZ library system many more times than it was ever borrowed in hard copy, and the LV recording I made has been accessed nearly 9,941 times on the Internet Archive in the three months since it was uploaded. That's almost four times the population of the town that it's about. This is the kind of thing that keeps me volunteering in both places.

In the end, whether someone else is making money or not, we have made books available through print (PG or Wikisource) and spoken word (LV) because we believe that everyone has the right to access them regardless of where in the world they come from, regardless of their educational level, their skin colour, creed, gender, sexual preference, age, or language ability.

[DrSpoke]

In the end, whether someone else is making money or not, we have made books available through print (PG or Wikisource) and spoken word (LV) because we believe that everyone has the right to access them regardless of where in the world they come from, regardless of their educational level, their skin colour, creed, gender, sexual preference, age, or language ability.

I agree, and as somebody who has fought their way into institutional libraries that were denying access because of lack of credentials, I can say that Livrivox is one of those instances that make me happy about Internet being there. But I also believe in information. I spent several months on LV before realising that the recordings were not just LV catalogue stuff, but appeared also on Youtube, Twitter, Apps; that there were actually covers made and linked to them! Nothing wrong with that, but I just didn't know.
A lot of what happens with digital content today is virtually impossible to assess in its implications in the long term. I just thought it might be handy one day to know what's going on now with files that become somebody's property in a way, somebody with their own (unknown now) ways in the future to do something with that. With time, things can become less traceable.

I'm not fretting. I'm not complaining. I'm happy to be part of this beautiful idea.

[BengtW]

I am also putting all our recordings on YouTube. The channel is not monetized but I do not think channels that makes money out of it on YouTube or anywhere else does anything wrong. They might put significant work into their business and if people are willing to pay for it why not. I however think that removing the disclaimer and not crediting Librivox is morally questionable.

[annise]

"I remember " she says rocking gently on her rocking chair "when the only external use of our files were sellers of disks on EBay. Some readers objected, others thought that as we were not in a position to provide disks it was a good idea for cars, and others that their solos were selling for less than someone else's were. So you can never please everyone, we all just need to respect others' opinions

Anne

[GettingTooOld]

I however think that removing the disclaimer and not crediting Librivox is morally questionable.

That is what the creative commons attribution license is for. CC-BY has only one condition, which is giving credit where credit is due, nothing else, everything else remains the same. PD, or CC-0 has no or zero '0' conditions.

other licenses anyone can use are
CC-NC no commercial use, everything else allowed
CC-ND no derivatives, you can't re-arrange the words to form new and refreshing perspectives.
CC-SA is I think share alike, which means mix metaphors in my work to say what I failed to say, but release it under a similar free license. I think. I'm sketchy on the SA one, I'm just recalling all of these straight from the top of my dome. as you rock, rock, rock, rock, rock the mic-ro-phone.

Oh and you can mix and match CC licenses. So CC-BY-NC means say who did it, and don't sell it, give it away free (or small nominal charge for the USB stick it's on is ok.