GETTING copyright right matters for libraries. It’s arguably one side of the same coin as funding, determining what we can do with our resources, and so how far readers, researchers and learners can enjoy effective library services.

However, there is also an industry that has been built on maximising revenues from holding copyright, often opposing such steps. It can certainly be uncomfortable to be going up against players claiming to act in writers’ interest, even if there is a discussion about how far this is the case. But it is also generally bad public relations to attack libraries, even if this is forgotten sometimes. This article shares some examples.

“Libraries are thieves”

While many in the copyright industries recognise the value of libraries’ work, the logic of extracting every last penny from rights is still powerful, and can leads to claims that libraries’ work and reform priorities are tantamount to piracy. This was the case when the then Publishers Association head accused the British Library and UK Research Councils of ‘tawdry theft’, for demanding pro-research copyright reforms.

Similarly, the European Commission’s assessment of the evidence around its future text and data mining rules noted rightholders’ claim that an exception would “facilitate the misuse and piracy of their content and make them lose business opportunities in future”.

“It’s the end of the world”

It is common to hear that copyright reform would be disastrous for the creative sector. For example, there has been a noisy campaign for Canada to roll back library-friendly education exceptions. Arguments have focused on the idea that falling photocopying fee revenues (at a time of a strong shift from physical to licenced digital materials) was somehow indicative of a major problem.

The Canadian Parliament’s Industry, Science and Technology committee gave this short shrift, noting that: “Despite the volume and diversity of evidence submitted throughout the review, the Committee observed a problematic lack of authoritative and impartial data and analysis on major issues. Multiple witnesses either overestimated how strongly the data they presented supported their arguments or failed to disclose its limitations.”

“Marrakesh was a bad idea”

It’s a matter of almost universal consensus now that the Marrakesh Treaty, that provides for the removal of copyright barriers to the making and sharing of accessible format copies of works for people and print disabilities, was a good idea.

However, this wasn’t always the case. As Corporate Europe Observatory has noted: “In the years before the Treaty was negotiated and finalised, the publishing and entertainment industries around the world were vociferous in lobbying against it”. Instead, they called for a voluntary approach that had patently failed up to that point, and recruited wider industry players to lobby in this sense.

Clearly, the change of heart is welcome, but it is worth remembering that we can expect opposition even to things that later will seem obvious.

“We’re not the big guys”

Finally, despite the firepower available to opponents of reform, we often see claims that they are actually the underdogs. However, Corporate Europe Observatory has pointed out that the top six groups meeting the European Commission to discuss copyright issues ahead of the Directive were all rightholder organisations.

There can also be a tendency to claim little control over markets, as was the case in the proposed (US) merger of Penguin Random House and Simon and Schuster. As reported in Vox, “Over the course of the trial that ensued, publishers would continue to insist on their existing public image as helpless incompetents at the whims of larger companies and an irrational market. The government, meanwhile, stuck to the narrative that the publishers were savvy operators who knew exactly what they were doing with their billion-dollar companies. Their story has now won.”

Summing up

These are just some of the arguments thrown at libraries. But as highlighted in the introduction, just because someone is noisy in opposing better conditions for libraries, this does not mean that they are right – rather the opposite!

Librarians should be confident in their engagement in favour of reform, knowing that they are acting on behalf of our individual users, and our society as a whole.

Stephen Wyber is a member of the Management Committee of Knowledge Rights 21 (KR21) - The Knowledge Rights 21 programme is focused on bringing about legal and policy change to strengthen the right of all to knowledge. It works to build sustainable advocacy capacity within countries, including through sharing materials and guidance. It exists with the generous support of the Arcadia Fund.