A win for open access as Z-library goes physical

At the start of April, Z-library announced plans to go physical with their online booksharing, by establishing “Z-points” for book exchanges. The shadow library will begin working on the new service “to preserve the literary heritage and spread the knowledge and ideas contained in books to more people.”

“Book owners who are willing to share them with other users can send books to the nearest Z-Point in their region. And those who need books stored in these points will be able to receive them for their use.”

This development may be surprising, given that only a few months ago over 200 of Z-library’s domains were seized by the US Department of Justice. Two Russian nationals believed to be running the site, Anton Napolsky and Valeriia Ermakova, were arrested and charged with criminal copyright infringement, wire fraud, and money laundering for operating Z-library.

An FBI press release said, “the defendants profited illegally off work they stole… and in the process victimized authors, publishers and booksellers.”  Here, we understand “victimization” to relate to a loss of hypothetical income — something that is difficult to quantify.

Z-library bills itself as the world’s biggest library, offering over 11 million e-books for free download under the principle that “information wants to be free.” The criminal prosecution has proven to be disruptive, but not fatal, as the site was soon back on the dark web and, as of February 11, 2023, has returned to the clearnet, too. Users now get a unique personal domain in order to evade widescale clamp-downs being repeated.

Upon return, Z-library shared a statement thanking its userbase for their contributions, securing necessary funds to ensure continued development. The new service, so it says, will be a physical library, on a greater scale with wider reach.

Copyright is a murky issue when it comes to the internet. Its law is grounded in the age of print, when publications were recognizable by the parameters of their physicality. The means necessary to producing a physical work were limited enough that infringement was largely impossible. As time went on, this became less and less of a barrier and the first copyright crisis of the digital age was caused by the widespread availability of photocopiers.

From then on, copyright legislation became reactive, changing only in response to technological advance. For example, we know that whenever you open a web page the information on it is stored in your computer’s cache and RAM. To get around this slight breach of copyright, the concept of “Implied Consent” protects internet users.

How far can copyright principles go to accommodate new tech, what legal structure is necessary to ensure maximum use and innovation of information and thought? In the early days of the internet, prosecutions were levied against the people running bulletinboards that were used to share ‘stolen’ software. In 1994, lawyer Harvey Silvergate made the argument that “Can AT&T be held liable for criminal conversations held on their phone lines? … Can the New York Times be held liable because gamblers use the information published in its sports section? Of course not. I don’t see how you can make distinctions between people who run newspapers, phone lines and computer bulletin board systems.”

Is there a corresponding rule for, say, assumed consent? Say, someone who has access to an online resource that, although not free, offers and encourages its users to download the information it provides?

The case of Aaron Swartz is a well-known example of the intricacies and misapplication of internet copyright law. Swartz helped author RSS web syndication specification that provided the standardized format used to publish frequently updated works online, and co-programmed Reddit.

He helped set up a Z-library predecessor, Open Library, an effort started in 2006 to create “one web page for every book ever published.” It provides access to many public domain and out-of-print books, which can be read online.

He actively campaigned against “what he saw as the corrupting influence of big money on institutions and the fundamental imbalance of power structures in the modern age.” By 2010, he’d witnessed the internet shift from a non-discriminatory tool for the proliferation of information to a for-profit, individualistic furthering of capitalist ideals.

In July 2011 Swartz was indicted on multiple felony counts for downloading several million academic articles from JSTOR. His intention in doing so was never revealed, but Swartz did co-write the Guerilla Open Access Manifesto, calling for the “liberation” of information locked up by publishers and corporations.

It seemed that Swartz was to become a post-WikiLeaks example. US attorney Carmen Ortiz issued a press release at the time of the arrest stating that “stealing is stealing whether you use a computer command or a crowbar, and whether you take documents, data or dollars. It is equally harmful to the victim whether you sell what you have stolen or give it away.” Despite the fact that the theft had no discernible victims, nor personal financial gain for Swartz, and despite JSTOR declining to pursue charges, Ortiz rejected a deal to keep Swartz out of prison.

Two days later, on January 11, 2013, Aaron Swartz killed himself.

Z-library is mainly used by people who otherwise couldn’t afford to read

Z-library’s mission statement, like Swartz’s intentions, doesn’t scream supercriminal. “The knowledge and cultural heritage of mankind should be accessible to all people around the world, regardless of their wealth, social status, nationality, citizenship, etc. This is the only purpose Z-Library is made for.”

Maybe that’s why the site was able to bounce back so completely after the domains were seized, having received contributions from its users that secured the necessary funds for its continued development.

A significant portion of Z-library users are students accessing textbooks. CEO of the Author’s Guild, Mary Rosenberger wrote in a statement that “we are not unsympathetic to the plight of those college and other students who have perhaps felt forced to resort to such illegal pirate websites and other free sources of textbooks to help them manage the extremely high cost of higher education.”

Putting everything behind a paywall, only sharing information with paying subscribers, forgets all the opportunity the internet represents. Z-library going physical is indicative of the escalation that companies fear when copyright isn’t enforced online. The adage applies: knowledge is power, and with that companies see profit.

The thing is, how much money is lost by students saving on textbooks? By someone without access to a well-stocked library reading the next in a trilogy? When Z-library’s domains were seized, Nicola Soloman, Chief Executive of the Society of Authors stated, on the seizure of Z-library, “this will be critical in protecting authors’ incomes all around the world, and facilitating new literature, which can’t be made if authors aren’t paid for their work.”

Without delving into the world of publishing, it’s worth noting that an author’s paycheck isn’t issued per book sold. The world of print so often recoils from the internet but forgets the potential it has to further an author’s work.

In 2017 a short story published in the New Yorker called Cat Person went viral (albeit behind a paywall).  Its author, Kristen Roupenian’s first book, a collection of short stories, gave her an advance of $1,200,000 — compared to the usual $1000-$2000.

Once something is put onto the internet, it’s there forever, and out of your control. The mantra that’s so often applied to an ill-considered selfie or heat of the moment tweet might be relevant too in the world of publishing. A work isn’t stolen when it’s made accessible; no one at Z-library is claiming to have written the content onsite. Its success and longevity should show the value of opening access.