There’s something special about professionally produced textbooks. From the information inside to the tactile feel of the paper, textbooks can be items of beauty.

Unfortunately, reality rains on the parade more than just a little. Textbooks are bulky, woefully underpowered for mass research purposes, and then suddenly out date for any number of reasons. After factoring in the extraordinary expense, it’s no surprise that some turn to sites like the recently resurrected Z-Library .

Check Out The Bargains, Beware of the Scams

A student posting on Reddit’s /r/college earlier this year posed questions about digital textbooks. As a distance learner, digital copies made sense since they don’t have to be physically returned.

After spotting a website offering every textbook the student needed for ‘just’ $20 each, a question needed to be answered: Is Fenlita.com really ‘legit’?

As suggested by some of the responses, sites selling new textbooks for $20 should always be viewed with caution. Several people claiming to have used Fenlita say they pretty much got what they expected – a pirated copy of a textbook in PDF format, in some cases delivered via a Dropbox link.

Other reviews and reports suggest more serious problems for potential buyers.

One reported purchase consisted of a file that “took about an hour” to download and then turned out to be 400 pages of screenshots. Given the low price, that might’ve been tolerable; if the textbook in its original form hadn’t run to 650 pages.

Reports of multiple charges to credit cards and items appearing in baskets multiple times weren’t supported by proof but are still a concern. A report from a buyer, who complained that a download link went to an apparently ‘seized’ website, hardly inspires confidence.

Publishers Target Fenlita.com

Given the above, it’s interesting to note that major educational publishers Cengage, Macmillan, McGraw-Hill, and Pearson were in court earlier this month on a mission to unmask the operator of Fenlita.com via DMCA subpoena.

Court documents reveal that the publishers filed a complaint with domain registrar Namecheap on February 21, 2023. When the website remained operational, counsel for the publishers filed a second complaint on March 2, requesting an urgent response.

The application was accompanied by four-and-a-half pages of microscopic text listing hundreds of URLs where infringing textbooks were being offered.

The publishers asked Namecheap to take action, including by disabling the fenlita.com domain. When that didn’t happen, Cengage, Macmillan, McGraw-Hill, and Pearson asked a Washington court to compel Namecheap to hand over the domain owner’s personal details.

Namecheap Ordered to Unmask Domain Owner

The court granted the request a few days ago, and after being served with the DMCA subpoena, Namecheap must now produce the following:

Identifying information for the person(s) responsible for the alleged infringing content listed in the attached Exhibit A, including but not limited to billing or administrative records that provide the name(s), address(es), telephone number(s), email address(es), account number(s), or any other contact information for such persons.

These requests for information aren’t always successful. Domain buyers are often aware of the trail they leave behind, so it’s possible that Namecheap has only false information to hand over. That being said, the publishers’ are likely to be aware of the bigger picture.

Commerical Pirates and Deception

Most pirate sites have no interest in passing themselves off as legal suppliers. For commercial operations like Fenlita, the impression of being a legitimate vendor offering discounts is helpful when offering pirate copies available for free elsewhere.

A physical address for the ‘company’ behind Fenlita.com features prominently on the website. It leads to a residential property in Sedalia, Missouri, and is unlikely to be genuine. The same address is linked to ads promoting an ethical and environmentally aware seller of returned Amazon books.

Fenlita endeavor to redirect books from landfills, keep books reasonable, offer assistance support library maintainability and through their accomplices, give important arrangements to the worldwide issue of lack of education. That books are a ageless expression of disclosure, creative ability, and accomplishment. Fenlita let stories live on by guaranteeing books are perused once more, given to somebody in require, or reused as another valuable buyer great with a modern story to tell.

This entire pitch was ripped off from genuine booksellers, Discover Books , before being transformed into a mangled mess. That adds to the weight of evidence pointing to an operation people should really avoid.

Unfortunately, people seeking advice from the ‘People also ask’ section of Google search are likely to get the opposite impression. In fairness to Google, the structure of the linked article doesn’t help.

Google’s Transparency Report reveals that since January 2023, the publishers sent takedown notices requesting 12,113 fenlita.com URLs to be removed from search results. Unfortunately, 99.4% of those requests failed to remove anything because the URLs didn’t exist when Google processed the request.

It’s not hard to see why that might be annoying for the publishers but buyers might be a little annoyed too.

WHOIS records show that fenlita.com was registered with Namecheap in October 2021 and currently uses Cloudflare which hides its server IP address. In Fenlita’s case, it was possible to obtain an IP address of a server it had used in the past when Cloudflare wasn’t providing cover.

Payments Diverted, Spam Calls Accepted

When people buy books from Fenlita today, without their knowledge their payment is processed on a subdomain of another ‘book’ store located at getelfinbook.com, which uses the same IP address used by Fenlita in the past.

Whether people supply or have their phone numbers obtained by the platform in other ways is unclear, but in the tiniest of print, buyers agree to receive recurring automated text messages from an automatic dialing system which charges for the privilege.

The same IP address mentioned earlier shows hundreds of similar sites, all products of an instant online shopping website creation platform. We haven’t viewed them all but we did check a few dozen, and many show hallmarks of some type of scam; fake addresses and fake contact details, images culled from other sites, and the same bogus DMCA complaint page.

The publishers’ DMCA subpoena application can be found here ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , pdf)

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

For more than 15 years, rightsholders have been obtaining injunctions that require internet service providers to block pirate sites. With no clear roadmap, early blocking applications met one complication after another. Today, most run relatively smoothly.

From a cold, legal perspective, a 2020 blocking application filed by publishers Elsevier, Wiley, and American Chemical Society should’ve been straightforward. Benefiting from the experiences of the High Court in London and the adoption of U.S-penned terms such as ‘rogue site’, Indian judges had readily embraced blocking injunctions as a reasonable response to rampant infringement.

Applications for 10,000+ domains to be blocked within days are now routinely approved by India’s courts. In Sci-Hub’s case, the clock has already been running for more than two years. The reasons for that are both straightforward and complex.

On one hand, unauthorized mass copying and distribution of movies, TV shows, and music is widely recognized as copyright infringement. When scientific papers and academic articles enter the equation, the ground suddenly starts to shift. Underpinned by the widespread belief that publishers exploit academic works, to sustain a monopoly that restricts access to information in favor of profit, all bets are suddenly off.

Even among those who view other types of piracy as immoral, access to education for those unable to afford it is increasingly considered the new moral standard. Perhaps more than anywhere else, people in India are prepared to stand up and fight for an education.

Alexandra Elbakyan: This Case Should Be Dismissed

Unlike most pirate site operators, Sci-Hub founder Alexandra Elbakyan has become an accessible public figure. Supported by millions of students, academics and scientists, when Elbakyan takes on the ‘greedy’ publishers, a win for her is seen as a win for all.

The general consensus is that copyright law favors the publishers, but in a recent motion to dismiss, Elbakyan had other things on her mind too.

As Justice Sanjeev Narula at the High Court of Delhi explains in a recently published order, Elbakyan called for the entire case to be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Based on the assertion that the assignment agreements relied upon by the publishers do not confer ownership of copyrights relating to the allegedly infringed works, Elbakyan declared them void.

“Reliance is placed upon Section 16 and 19 of the Copyright Act, 1957, to argue that agreements relating to copyrights must specify royalty or some other form of consideration, failing which, they cannot affect the assignment of copyright,” Justice Narula writes.

“ Section 25 of the Contract Act is relied upon to contend an agreement without consideration is void.”

Mandatory Economic Component Absent

Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayan, Senior Counsel representing Elbakyan, informed the court that the publishers are required by law to “pay royalty and other consideration” to the authors of scientific articles in exchange for the exclusive right of distribution.

Examination of the agreements showed that the authors have not been compensated, Sankaranarayan said. Not only is the mandatory economic component absent from the agreements, they are also irrelevant. The agreements pertain to the publication of books; Elbakyan is accused of distributing articles.

Plaintiffs Own The Copyrights

Before addressing these matters directly, the Judge turns to a statement previously submitted to the Court.

“Ms. Elbakyan [defendant no.1], in her written statement, has categorically admitted that Plaintiffs are owners of copyright in subject works,” the Judge notes. “This admission was attempted to be withdrawn by way of an application [..] which was dismissed by this Court by way of a detailed order dated 3rd November, 2022.”

The November order also contains a statement by the judge: (edited for clarity)

By virtue of agreements between the Plaintiffs and authors of the various literary works published by the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs have been assigned and thus are the owners of, inter alia, the exclusive rights to (a) issue copies of the literary works to the public, (b) to reproduce the literary works in any form including the storing of it in any medium by electronic means, and (c) communicate the work to the public. The Plaintiffs are thus the owners of the copyright.

Since the application to withdraw Elbakyan’s admissions failed last November, those admissions will remain on record, Justice Narula says. Having asserted copyright ownership via assignment agreements and presented evidence that Elbakyan infringed their copyrights, the plaintiffs demonstrated a cause of action.

On that basis, the Judge finds no grounds for dismissing the plaintiffs’ blocking application. The next hearing is scheduled for July 2023. In the meantime, Sci-Hub has received some unexpected news.

After suspending Sci-Hub’s .SE domain in January , The Swedish Internet Foundation has now restored it following what appears to have been a successful “ownership verification process.”

The February 9, 2023 and November 2022 orders can be found here ( 1 , 2 , pdf)

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Sci-Hub and Libgen have developed a reputation for breaking down digital walls as part of their quest to grant universal access to scientific papers, research, and knowledge.

This mission objective receives considerable support from both academics and students. In stark contrast, major publishing companies own the rights to millions of papers being offered by Sci-Hub and Libgen for free, something that undermines their premium business model.

The publishers view the platforms as straightforward pirate sites so want to deny access to them in any way possible, including via site-blocking measures.

Publishers from Germany, the United Kingdom, and United States have been fighting a legal battle in Germany. They believe that telecoms company Deutsche Telekom should implement DNS blocking to prevent customers from accessing Sci-Hub and Libgen.

After an initial lawsuit and subsequent appeal found in favor of one party and then the other, a ruling published by the First Civil Senate of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) now clarifies the conditions under which site-blocking measures can be sought.

District Court of Munich

The case was first heard at the District Court of Munich (LG München) where publishers including Elsevier and Springer Nature claimed exclusive rights in publications including The Lancet and Nature. They claimed with a certainty of 99.99% that at least 96% of the content offered by Sci-Hub and Libgen was being made available to the public without the necessary rights.

The publishers said that before filing the lawsuit to compel Deutsche Telekom to implement DNS blocking, they had obtained a $15m judgment and injunction against Sci-Hub in the United States and conducted investigations in Russia and elsewhere. None of these ‘wins’ led to Sci-Hub shutting down.

Targeting Sci-Hub’s hosting providers was also ineffective. The publishers said copyright complaints were ignored or Sci-Hub would move to another provider, including so-called “bullet proof” hosting companies selling non-cooperation as part of their feature set.

With no other options left, compelling Deutsche Telekom to implement DNS blocking would be reasonable and also relatively cheap (2,000 to 4,000 euros), the publishers said.

Deutsche Telekom said it was not responsible for the infringements of third parties, nor was it able to assess or influence the intent of internet users during a pre-existing communications process. Noting that DNS blocking is unsuitable for eliminating infringement, the telecoms company said that the publishers had failed to exhaust more reasonable other options, including legal action against hosting providers.

In its decision, the Munich District Court sided with the publishers and ordered a number of Sci-hub domains (plus unrelated proxy sites) to be blocked by Deutsche Telekom.

Court of Appeal and Federal Court of Justice Decisions

Deutsche Telekom appealed the Munich District Court’s decision, arguing that the publishers failed to exhaust other available options before requesting a blockade, as required by law . This includes action against a hosting provider in Sweden, a member of the European Union.

The Munich Higher District Court (OLG München) agreed, overturned the lower court’s decision, and dismissed the case. Following a legal review carried out by Germany’s Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH), a decision published yesterday finds that the court of appeal made the correct decision when it sided with Deutsche Telekom.

Site-Blocking Should Be a Tool of Last Resort

The Federal Court of Justice notes that the Telemedia Act (TMG) allows rightsholders to request blocking orders against internet service providers in order to prevent repeated violations of their rights. While this can include DNS blockades, certain conditions must be met before the relief can be obtained.

Under the TMG, the rightsholder must have “no other possibility” of dealing with infringement. The Federal Court of Justice writes that demanding DNS blocking from an ISP (Deutsche Telekom) is only suitable when action against parties closer to the infringement has been exhausted.

In this case, the publishers should have filed a lawsuit in Germany against the known Sweden-based hosting provider, demanding that it hands over all information relating to its customers, Sci-Hub and Libgen. Without even attempting this option of targeting the infringement closer to where it occurs, the publishers should not have demanded a DNS block from a service provider.

“The access provider [Deutsche Telekom], who only provides general access to the Internet, is only secondarily liable to those parties who (like the operator of the website) committed the infringement themselves or (like the host provider) contributed to the infringement by providing services and are therefore much closer to the violation of legal interests,” the decision reads.

“The plaintiffs must attempt to assert a right to information against the Swedish host provider before a German court by way of an injunction. There is no reason to refer the matter back to the Court of Appeal. The plaintiffs have made extensive submissions on the measures they have taken.”

The BGH decision can be found here . It underlines a BGH decision handed down in 2015 which found that internet providers can be obliged to block infringing websites on the condition that rightsholders have already done everything reasonably possible to stop the infringement.

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Bonjour à tous ! Aujourd'hui sur la toile, le mot WikiGate circule. Mais de quoi ça s'agit-il donc bien ? Heureusement l'équipe hashtagueule est là pour mettre au clair tout ça. Vous aurez tous reconnu la formation du mot-clef Wikigate à partir de Watergate, ce scandale à propos d'écoutes aux États-...

Bonjour à tous !

Aujourd'hui sur la toile, le mot WikiGate circule. Mais de quoi ça s'agit-il donc bien ? Heureusement l'équipe hashtagueule est là pour mettre au clair tout ça.

Vous aurez tous reconnu la formation du mot-clef Wikigate à partir de Watergate, ce scandale à propos d'écoutes aux États-Unis. Apparemment, c'est devenu traditionnel d'utiliser le suffixe -gate pour désigner des scandales ou de grands débats sur la toile.

De quoi est-ce que relève ce Wikigate ?

Connaissez-vous  Elsevier ? Il s'agit d'une maison d'édition qui publie des articles scientifiques. Celle-ci vient d'offrir à Wikipédia 45 comptes d'accès à leurs articles scientifiques. Les personnes ayant accès à ces comptes seront très probablement des éditeurs fréquents de l'encyclopédie. Expliquons le drame, mais avant, un lien vers le blog de la fondation Wikimédia qui traite ce problème (en anglais).

Il y a beaucoup d'aspect à cet "offre" de la part d'Elsevier, et je vais m'efforcer de les aborder tous avant de donner mon avis.

Traitons tout d'abord les avantages de cette offre

• pour Wikipédia, il s'agit-là d'un accès direct à l'information dans le monde scientifique, qui plus est avec un éditeur assez reconnu ;
• cet accès peut en outre signifier une amélioration plus rapide du contenu scientifique de l'encyclopédie.

Voyons à présent les  inconvénients

(c'est bizarre à dire d'une offre gratuite, mais ayons les yeux ouverts...)

• Tout d'abord, cela pose des problèmes de vérification de l'information sur Wikipédia. En effet, les éditeurs de l'encyclopédie ayant reçu un accès aux articles d'Elsevier peuvent être tentés de les citer, et cela pose plusieurs problèmes :
  • premièrement un problème de vérification par relecture directe, en effet il ne sera pas possible à tout un chacun d'aller vérifier qu'un propos sur Wikipédia lié à une citation est conforme à la citation puisque les articles de Elsevier ne sont pas disponibles.
  • Deuxièmement, Wikipédia est une encyclopédie, et comme telle, son but est plutôt de recueillir une information obtenue par un processus scientifique dit "contradictoire", c'est-à-dire (entre autres) revu et corrigé par des pairs, testé par des équipes indépendantes, etc...
  • Troisièmement, par nature Wikipédia est une encyclopédie ouverte : il y a (au moins) deux contraintes liées à cela :
    • on ne peut pas publier n'importe quoi sur l'encyclopédie (du contenu breveté, avec du droit d'auteur, etc...) ;
    • les contributeurs s'engagent à mettre leur publication sous une licence qui permet un certain partage. Il serait injuste envers les contributeurs de fermer l'encyclopédie partiellement, par exemple.
• Un second problème vient du fait que Wikipédia est le 7ème site le plus visité au monde, 5è en France (selon Alexa). Ainsi :
  • Elsevier se fait une publicité immense si la plupart des lien d'articles scientifiques redirige vers eux ;
  • il s'agit donc d'un problème d'indépendance de la part de Wikipédia ;
  • une menace plus grave à mon avis est celle qu'on appelle "native advertising", cette tendance où vous lisez un papier  qui ressemble à un article, mais qui en fait est de la publicité, ou un article d'une société, qui n'est pas tenue aux règles journalistiques.
• Le dernier point soulève des questions liées à cette actualité, mais pas de réel problème imminent :
  • le droit de citation va surgir dans ce débat, il va y avoir une sorte de jurisprudence ou d'équilibre (si vous faites du droit ou de la physique ^^) sur la possibilité des auteurs de Wikipédia de citer les articles. Il est évident que cet accès de la part de Elsevier n'est pas donné pour qu'instantanément les articles se retrouvassent sur Wikipédia...
  • en deuxième lieu, mais lié au premier, il y a la question de la durée au bout de laquelle le contenu d'un article pourra se retrouver en grande partie dans l'encyclopédie, mais il s'agit-là de vieux débat...

Démêlons le Schmilblick

Alors que faire ? me direz-vous. Hauts les cœurs, et envisageons la meilleure sortie pour tous de ce parti.

Ayant vu les problèmes clairement, on peut suggérer

• S'il faut qu'Elsevier soit cité, alors que premièrement, Elsevier soit citée le moins possible comme seule source. C'est-à-dire que le plus possible, il faut que les citation de bas de page (celles que les collégiens utilisent pour leurs exposés ;) ) soient vers des articles en libre accès, quitte à ce qu'eux-même redirigent vers Elsevier, et qu'en dernier ressort, l'on cite seulement Elsevier.
• qu'on utilise la catégorie "discussion" de Wikipédia pour les articles vraiment récents, afin d'éviter le contenu sujet à débat (n'ayez crainte, les wikipédiens le font déjà)

C'est tout, n'oubliez pas de donner à la fondation Wikimédia qui s'occupe de Wikipédia, de lire et corriger Wikipédia, et merci d'avoir prit le temps de vous inquiéter pour l'encyclopédie, et n'oubliez pas de commenter et donner votre avis !

Motius

Bonjour à tous ! Aujourd'hui sur la toile, le mot WikiGate circule. Mais de quoi ça s'agit-il donc bien ? Heureusement l'équipe hashtagueule est là pour mettre au clair tout ça. Vous aurez tous reconnu la formation du mot-clef Wikigate à partir de Watergate, ce scandale à propos d'écoutes aux États-...

Bonjour à tous !

Aujourd'hui sur la toile, le mot WikiGate circule. Mais de quoi ça s'agit-il donc bien ? Heureusement l'équipe hashtagueule est là pour mettre au clair tout ça.

Vous aurez tous reconnu la formation du mot-clef Wikigate à partir de Watergate, ce scandale à propos d'écoutes aux États-Unis. Apparemment, c'est devenu traditionnel d'utiliser le suffixe -gate pour désigner des scandales ou de grands débats sur la toile.

De quoi est-ce que relève ce Wikigate ?

Connaissez-vous  Elsevier ? Il s'agit d'une maison d'édition qui publie des articles scientifiques. Celle-ci vient d'offrir à Wikipédia 45 comptes d'accès à leurs articles scientifiques. Les personnes ayant accès à ces comptes seront très probablement des éditeurs fréquents de l'encyclopédie. Expliquons le drame, mais avant, un lien vers le blog de la fondation Wikimédia qui traite ce problème (en anglais).

Il y a beaucoup d'aspect à cet "offre" de la part d'Elsevier, et je vais m'efforcer de les aborder tous avant de donner mon avis.

Traitons tout d'abord les avantages de cette offre

• pour Wikipédia, il s'agit-là d'un accès direct à l'information dans le monde scientifique, qui plus est avec un éditeur assez reconnu ;
• cet accès peut en outre signifier une amélioration plus rapide du contenu scientifique de l'encyclopédie.

Voyons à présent les  inconvénients

(c'est bizarre à dire d'une offre gratuite, mais ayons les yeux ouverts...)

• Tout d'abord, cela pose des problèmes de vérification de l'information sur Wikipédia. En effet, les éditeurs de l'encyclopédie ayant reçu un accès aux articles d'Elsevier peuvent être tentés de les citer, et cela pose plusieurs problèmes :
  • premièrement un problème de vérification par relecture directe, en effet il ne sera pas possible à tout un chacun d'aller vérifier qu'un propos sur Wikipédia lié à une citation est conforme à la citation puisque les articles de Elsevier ne sont pas disponibles.
  • Deuxièmement, Wikipédia est une encyclopédie, et comme telle, son but est plutôt de recueillir une information obtenue par un processus scientifique dit "contradictoire", c'est-à-dire (entre autres) revu et corrigé par des pairs, testé par des équipes indépendantes, etc...
  • Troisièmement, par nature Wikipédia est une encyclopédie ouverte : il y a (au moins) deux contraintes liées à cela :
    • on ne peut pas publier n'importe quoi sur l'encyclopédie (du contenu breveté, avec du droit d'auteur, etc...) ;
    • les contributeurs s'engagent à mettre leur publication sous une licence qui permet un certain partage. Il serait injuste envers les contributeurs de fermer l'encyclopédie partiellement, par exemple.
• Un second problème vient du fait que Wikipédia est le 7ème site le plus visité au monde, 5è en France (selon Alexa). Ainsi :
  • Elsevier se fait une publicité immense si la plupart des lien d'articles scientifiques redirige vers eux ;
  • il s'agit donc d'un problème d'indépendance de la part de Wikipédia ;
  • une menace plus grave à mon avis est celle qu'on appelle "native advertising", cette tendance où vous lisez un papier  qui ressemble à un article, mais qui en fait est de la publicité, ou un article d'une société, qui n'est pas tenue aux règles journalistiques.
• Le dernier point soulève des questions liées à cette actualité, mais pas de réel problème imminent :
  • le droit de citation va surgir dans ce débat, il va y avoir une sorte de jurisprudence ou d'équilibre (si vous faites du droit ou de la physique ^^) sur la possibilité des auteurs de Wikipédia de citer les articles. Il est évident que cet accès de la part de Elsevier n'est pas donné pour qu'instantanément les articles se retrouvassent sur Wikipédia...
  • en deuxième lieu, mais lié au premier, il y a la question de la durée au bout de laquelle le contenu d'un article pourra se retrouver en grande partie dans l'encyclopédie, mais il s'agit-là de vieux débat...

Démêlons le Schmilblick

Alors que faire ? me direz-vous. Hauts les cœurs, et envisageons la meilleure sortie pour tous de ce parti.

Ayant vu les problèmes clairement, on peut suggérer

• S'il faut qu'Elsevier soit cité, alors que premièrement, Elsevier soit citée le moins possible comme seule source. C'est-à-dire que le plus possible, il faut que les citation de bas de page (celles que les collégiens utilisent pour leurs exposés ;) ) soient vers des articles en libre accès, quitte à ce qu'eux-même redirigent vers Elsevier, et qu'en dernier ressort, l'on cite seulement Elsevier.
• qu'on utilise la catégorie "discussion" de Wikipédia pour les articles vraiment récents, afin d'éviter le contenu sujet à débat (n'ayez crainte, les wikipédiens le font déjà)

C'est tout, n'oubliez pas de donner à la fondation Wikimédia qui s'occupe de Wikipédia, de lire et corriger Wikipédia, et merci d'avoir prit le temps de vous inquiéter pour l'encyclopédie, et n'oubliez pas de commenter et donner votre avis !

Motius