
Publishers File Suit Against Internet Archive - tingletech
https://publishers.org/news/publishers-file-suit-against-internet-archive-for-systematic-mass-scanning-and-distribution-of-literary-works/
======
tingletech
New York times story on the same subject _Publishers Sue Internet Archive Over
Free E-Books_ [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/books/internet-archive-
em...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/books/internet-archive-emergency-
library-coronavirus.html)

------
ilamont
Indie publisher here. My company publishes mostly how-to guides relating
technology, personal finance, and health. In fact this afternoon I am
reviewing proofs of a new title written by a surgeon meant to inform patients
(and their family members) dealing with thyroid cancer and thyroid nodules.
What I and my peers do for a living is nothing like building rocket ships or
designing amazing software applications, but it provides information and
entertainment for millions of people every day.

Like many people on HN, I regularly use the wayback machine or other parts of
the Internet Archive to track the history of websites or read out-of-copyright
and public domain works. Sharing this information is important and should be
continued.

I also believe in the concept of "Fair Use" for sharing and discussing
excerpts of more current works.

But when it comes to outright republishing of in-copyright printed works, the
rights of creators and publishers need to be recognized. The Internet Archive
decided that its mission trumped these rights and the laws of the United
States. Even when it was asked to repeatedly stop, it continued. So here we
are today.

Someone earlier asked the question, "Why can't the publishing industry just
hurry up and die?"

I'd like to put the question to those HN members who work in tech: How would
you feel if someone took your output without permission, whether it's designs
or code or something else unique and hard to make? How would you feel if
people cheered this on, or called for your demise, suggesting that the world
would be a better place without your work?

The traditional publishing industry has been in economic decline for 20 years,
with the number of regular readers declining and most retailers on the ropes.
Few publishers or authors make much money, yet the output of authors and
publishers grows every year thanks to self-publishing and other trends.

And some of the work published every year is fantastic. I sometimes serve as a
judge for indie publishing competitions, and it's amazing some of the work
that authors and their publishers are putting out, even though very few titles
will turn a profit.

Even if you haven't read a book in the past year or two, it's safe to say at
some time you did, or your loved ones did, and it informed or delighted you.

Finally, even if you don't personally care for the book industry, try to show
some respect for what we're doing, and the legal and business frameworks we
need to do what we do.

~~~
RNCTX
> I'd like to put the question to those HN members who work in tech: How would
> you feel if someone took your output without permission, whether it's
> designs or code or something else unique and hard to make? How would you
> feel if people cheered this on, or called for your demise, suggesting that
> the world would be a better place without your work?

As someone with a humanities education (literature specifically) I feel like
I've studied more than the average reader here about the particulars of famous
printed works from the past. And that background says "bullshit" in response
to your questions. Throughout history publishers have exploited authors
mercilessly in an effort to keep _ALL_ of the profit from their writing.

In short, the answer to your hypothetical question is quite simple. All of
these people you're addressing _have_ code, and _have_ original ideas. You on
the other hand are just a publisher, you don't have any original work at all.
You're nothing but a middle man.

There are no more middle managers at toaster and television distributors in
the developed world, sitting at desks filling out reports by hand and ordering
fresh stocks of paperclips and staples. We got rid of those people when we
modernized supply chains and in the process cut the prices of microwaves and
televisions so that they're not luxury items anymore.

Similarly, there's not going to be any room for publishing middle men for very
long either. If I were you I'd find a new line of work.

~~~
k__
This.

I made five figures by selling my book via a small publisher.

I know authors who sold their books via big publishers and they made
magnitudes less money than me while selling magnitudes more copies than me.

To me this sounds like a broken system.

~~~
RNCTX
A more valid hypothetical would be the expectation that developers working for
Google and Microsoft would be expected to work for free, creating entire
codebases for no money, with the only contribution from the publisher (Google
and Microsoft) being an editor to glance at and reject ideas they thought
unprofitable after the developers had spent countless hours / months / years
creating them.

If the occasional developer working for free finds a profitable idea, the
Google or Microsoft would pay them well under what that person requires to
survive for one year, plus a small (less than 10%) residual royalty __only
after the developer has "paid back" the less-than-one-year amount __which the
Google or Microsoft called an advance rather than payment for the original
work.

The only way the working-for-free developer could survive would be to teach
other developers who also aspire to work for free, and in so doing suppress
their urge to tell those students to go do quite literally anything else more
productive, because succumbing to that moral urge would result in less
students, which is the only way the developer can pay for rent and groceries.

~~~
SpelingBeeChamp
Okay, but this is not about whether publishers should exist...

~~~
RNCTX
> Okay, but this is not about whether publishers should exist...

Publish _er_ denotes a person, who presumably has power over another person in
this context. The assumption present in the definition of the term is that a
content creator, artist, whatever you want to call them cannot communicate
with their audience unless a person between audience and artist assumes
control/ownership of its distribution. Publish _ing_ , as a verb not a noun,
is another matter entirely. No one is arguing that publish _ing_ will cease to
exist. Even extended in context to include marketing people, I'm sure the vast
majority of people here will concede that marketing people serve a viable role
in their business.

But the vocation of publishing is the only one remaining from the
medieval/ancient world in which publish _ers_ demand ownership of the material
being published, under highly dubious terms. We do not give ownership of car
factories to car salesmen, simply because they sell cars. Nor do we give
ownership of parks and streets to politicians, simply because they write laws
governing their use and levy taxes to maintain them.

What stopped print publishers from selling devices like the Kindle before
Amazon did? Nothing. What stopped newspaper publishers from building
nationwide advertising networks before AOL and Google did? Nothing. What
stopped the RIAA from building iTunes or Napster before Apple or Napster did?
Nothing. What stopped the MPAA from building Netflix before Netflix did?
Nothing. Mere decades ago, all of those publishing consortiums had infinitely
more resources available to them to assert dominance over these new markets
than those upstarts who have since supplanted them.

If your contribution to the livelihood of your own business has been a steady
stream of nothings for about 30-40 years, you tend to get in fiscal trouble in
this day and age...

------
en4bz
There's a reason this as filed in the southern district of NY [1]. IA will
lose based on the results of the Redigi case. The court found that in the case
of a digital phonorecord that the "tangible medium" was the hard drive of the
device it was downloaded to. Thus if you want to resell an MP3 you need to
sell your hard drive. You can't just copy it to someone else's and then delete
it. Any copy other than the original was found to be an illegal copy.

They never even looked at First Sale Doctrine which is a possible defense in
this type of dispute.

If you translate this too books then the book itself is the tangible medium.
Scans are infringing copies and only valid for personal use.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_LLC_v._ReDigi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_LLC_v._ReDigi_Inc%2E)

~~~
tzs
Your link was broken by HN, which tends to get confused by links that end in
".". Here it is with the trailing dot encoded so HN will not mess it up:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_LLC_v._ReDigi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_LLC_v._ReDigi_Inc%2E)

~~~
dang
Thanks, yes, and sorry. I've replaced the link in the parent comment with this
one.

------
throwanem
Even the press release doesn't do a good job supporting the infringement
claim. They just baldly state IA isn't a real library and then hurry back to
reiterate their infringement claims and talk about why infringement is bad,
without ever actually explaining how IA's actions qualify _as_ infringement.

Looks like palming a card, to me.

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
Making unauthorized copies of copyrighted material is infringement. That is
why you weren't allowed to photocopy entire books before electronic
distribution was viable. IA isn't on solid ground here.

~~~
colejohnson66
You’re missing the point that IA is a _library_ , and, as such, is awarded
certain protections that an archival site might not otherwise have.

~~~
mthoms
Honest questions -

Who gets to define an entity as a "library" and is IA defined as such, legally
speaking?

~~~
jimbob45
...the government?

~~~
chongli
I just spent about 15 minutes searching all sorts of US government websites
including the Library of Congress. I could not find any mention of the
Internet Archive anywhere. Do you have a specific source that verifies that IA
is a library?

~~~
jimbob45
No I just meant that the government sets the standard for what qualifies as a
library. I'd have to take a trip to whichever city IA is based out of and
check the public records to determine whether or not they've filed for library
status.

~~~
mthoms
"Filed for library status"? That is _not_ a thing, don't make stuff up.

Libraries appear to be regulated at the state level _not municipal_.
[https://www.imls.gov/assets/1/News/PublicLibraryStructureOrg...](https://www.imls.gov/assets/1/News/PublicLibraryStructureOrg_3-1996.pdf)

------
pontifier
I am involved with a business that is attempting to do a lot of the same
things that Internet Archive is doing. I think they do a lot of really good
things, and I'm happy that they exist, but I believe they are on the wrong
side in this matter.

I don't know what they were thinking. I'd love to hear how they arrived at the
decision to just brazenly flout copyright law like this. I fear that they have
put a lot of their other efforts in danger.

I hope that my "archive and access" efforts will not be effected.

~~~
VonGuard
They did it because the pandemic has closed libraries coast to coast, and it
was a nice thing to do for people. Imagine that, making a decision not based
on money or liability.

I know, fuck them, right? /s

~~~
Mindwipe
> They did it because the pandemic has closed libraries coast to coast, and it
> was a nice thing to do for people. Imagine that, making a decision not based
> on money or liability.

You mean a stupid one that endangers everything else you do, yes?

Robbing a bank and giving away the money is a decision not based on money or
liability, but you shouldn't be very surprised you still get put in prison for
it.

~~~
ghaff
To say nothing of the fact that there are about 20,000 books at Project
Gutenberg and countless other (legal) short stories, books, articles, etc.
around the web. (And that's before talking video and other multimedia.)

It's not like there is some critical shortage of things to read online in the
absence of the IA.

~~~
VonGuard
You're both so right. The only thing that matters is money.

~~~
Zonulet
I am an author and I making my living from book sales. You're right, I'm
absolutely obsessed with money, in the sense that I need money to buy food and
pay my electricity bill.

~~~
ruanmed
> Robbing a bank and giving away the money is a decision not based on money or
> liability, but you shouldn't be very surprised you still get put in prison
> for it.

Quoting the other comment here to make my point.

AFAIK IA they did not give away the books, the books still were shared the
same way as before, with DRM and expiration dates. They just temporaly removed
the limitations of amount of books you can loan and increased the loan period
with an initial max end date of June 30.

So, yeah, what IA did is pretty different from robbing anything, in
unprecedented times of a global pandemic they provided access to a digital
library the same way a public library which holds those books would in normal
times.

------
fernly
Just for some needed context, here's what IA says about "borrowing a book"[1].
The critical point,

> Click on the book you would like to borrow. You will be taken to the item
> page and will be given the option to Borrow This book. Click on Borrow this
> Book. (If the book is on loan, you will be given an option to Join Waitlist)

So, at least before "quarantime", they only propogated one copy at a time of
any title.

[1] [https://help.archive.org/hc/en-
us/articles/360016554912-Borr...](https://help.archive.org/hc/en-
us/articles/360016554912-Borrowing-From-The-Lending-Library-A-Basic-Guide)

~~~
voiper1
Yes, before the Emergency Library, they maintained a reserve of physical
copies of book they bought or owned. Once that limit is reached, you can't
borrow it. Sounds possibly legal.

But this is new: unlimited borrowing. That's the opening for this lawsuit.

------
jvalencia
Just as a note, here's IA's article on the subject:
[https://help.archive.org/hc/en-
us/articles/360014759692-Righ...](https://help.archive.org/hc/en-
us/articles/360014759692-Rights)

------
mrgalaxy
It seems like Internet Archive's sites are just the digital versions of a
normal library. Is there something I'm missing here? Are these publishers
going to go after all libraries? Or is this more about the content being
digital?

~~~
TylerE
In a normal library, they have to obtain one copy for each copy checked out.

~~~
mrgalaxy
Oh I guess I kind of assumed that was what they were doing, although I guess I
didn't explicitly see that anywhere. If they really do lend more copies then
they've purchased then IA is pretty clearly in the wrong.

~~~
cygx
They suspended their waitlist until June 30 ("or the end of the US national
emergency, whichever is later") in response to library closures.

------
weinzierl
The Internet Archive does great work and please support them if you can[1].
Still, they are a single point of failure[2] and if they should falter one day
it will be a big loss. What we really need - in my opinion - is a second
mainstay - an archive of the archive so to speak.

[1] [https://archive.org/donate/](https://archive.org/donate/)

[2] Yes, I know about archive.today (formerly archive.is) but their extent is
no way comparable to archive.org. Also, they don't archive pages from
archive.org.

~~~
Shank
Archive.is/Archive.today is currently embroiled in a petty battle against
CloudFlare DNS users, which is, imho, contrary to the spirit of an "archive"
that is supposed to serve as a backup for things. I would rather support
essentially any other service than one that actively tampers with DNS
resolution for petty reasons.

[https://community.cloudflare.com/t/1-1-1-1-does-not-
resolve-...](https://community.cloudflare.com/t/1-1-1-1-does-not-resolve-
archive-is/28059)

~~~
cornishpixels
A "petty battle against CloudFlare DNS users"? No. They require a standardized
DNS extension in order for their services to operate properly, and CloudFlare
is waging a petty battle against the standard.

~~~
a1369209993
A "extension" is by definition something they _do not_ require, since
otherwise DNS clients written before that extension would not be able to
interoperate with them. That's what makes it a "extension" rather than a
unconsionable violation of backwards compatiblity.

And that particular extension exists solely as means for DNS proxies to
violate the privacy of their users by leaking client identity data to upstream
DNS servers. There are several reasons why Cloudflare is evil and needs to die
(especially ReCaptcha and associated attacks on TOR), but archive.is is firmly
in the wrong on this particular point.

------
WarOnPrivacy
The history of publishing orgs is one of compulsive lawsuits.

> Despite Google taking measures to provide full text of only works in public
> domain, and providing only a searchable summary online for books still under
> copyright protection, publishers maintain that Google has no right to copy
> full text of books with copyrights and save them, in large amounts, into its
> own database.

re: Author's Guild v. Google
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,_Inc).

------
ikeboy
[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17211300/hachette-
book-...](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17211300/hachette-book-group-
inc-v-internet-archive/) here's the actual lawsuit.

------
RNCTX
IF you wanna be more mad than this, go look up how much the university you
attended spends on subscriptions to these corporate publishers.

Fact is, the internet has made the business model of a middle man being
required to deliver content obsolete.

------
saagarjha
> Despite the self-serving library branding of its operations, IA’s conduct
> bears little resemblance to the trusted role that thousands of American
> libraries play within their communities and as participants in the lawful
> copyright marketplace. IA scans books from cover to cover, posts complete
> digital files to its website, and solicits users to access them for free by
> signing up for Internet Archive Accounts.

I wonder how they feel about actual libraries, which make published works
available for free to many people as well.

~~~
BitwiseFool
If libraries weren't an ancient concept that preceeded copyright law they'd be
illegal today.

~~~
user5994461
Libraries would be only illegal in the US though, because all these copyright
issues are US specific.

Archive.org might as well rebase itself somewhere else.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
[My personal opinion, unrelated to any employment:]

FWIW I've studied copyright informally in UK, USA, and to a lesser extent
other countries.

In UK our "Fair Dealing" is highly restrictive compared to USA's Fair Use.

Our (UK) archiving rights extend only to a couple of institutions and then
only to people attending the library in person. We don't have rights to make
backups; we don't have rights to format shift (except to help the disabled).

Yes, copyright specifics apply but wrt archiving USA is far from the most
restrictive regime.

~~~
unicornporn
In Sweden we have the super restricted "right to quote"[1]. Fair use seems
like a dream compared to this.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_quote](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_quote)

------
H8crilA
Thank you HN for keeping me up to speed - my usual monthly donation to IA will
get a one-time boost.

------
drallison
Now would be a good time to donate funds to the Internet Archive. While you
visit to give them money, check out the awesome collection.
[http://archive.org/donate](http://archive.org/donate)

It is also a good time to reflect upon the very idea of intellectual property.
In this age, 15th century ideas about how to protect printers may not be ideal
in the 21st century. Patents and copyright are constitutionally mandated: [The
Congress shall have power] “To promote the progress of science and useful
arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive
right to their respective writings and discoveries.” It is not clear that our
current laws are doing the job.

------
skratlo
But of course this has to be... America again, American Publishers, well, fuck
of, self-serving is written all over you

------
mark_l_watson
I love the Internet Archive and donate about once a year. That said, they
should not be loaning out copyright material, even during the civil-19
problems.

As an aside, I enjoy writing a lot and have released all of my later books
under a Creative Commons license, so I hope my books do show up in IA. People
who happen on my books may end up buying a copy sometime. One thing that
bothers me though is when I find out of date versions of my books on the web.
I have found my stuff in the web that is two or three editions old.

------
roryokane
It was surprisingly difficult to find links to these supposedly-infringing
libraries run by the Internet Archive. Here they are:

[https://archive.org/details/nationalemergencylibrary](https://archive.org/details/nationalemergencylibrary)

[https://openlibrary.org/](https://openlibrary.org/)

------
kyledrake
Loving all these controversial lawsuits and law changes (section 230) we've
seen during the crisis this week. Really helpful if you're trying to bury
stuff under the noise floor and away from public review.

My friends at neighborhood watches in Minneapolis said some people have been
trying to start fires at libraries, to say nothing of the pandemic. If you
can't loan a book at the library right now, where the hell else can you?

------
luord
An organization dedicated to preserving the knowledge of mankind or... Greedy
luddites attempting to use archaic laws to try to postpone the inevitable
demise of their absurd business model.

This is quite the dilemma.

------
PatrolX
IA should start respecting robots.txt disallow, because right now they ignore
it.

------
m0zg
Hmm. I didn't know IA had _books_ in it. Thanks, publishers!

------
ryanmarsh
Considering the number of people and organizations who've suffered the
embarrassment of statements that didn't age well, thoughtlessly transcribed by
IA, I'm surprised it took this long for someone to try and take them down.

I don't for a second believe this is motivated by anything but people who
don't want a permanent public archive of the statements of powerful
institutions and people.

------
MaxBarraclough
I was very surprised to see that Archive.org also host collections of
copyrighted ROMs.

------
chrischen
They should do a distributed client where opt-in users can upload their
browser cache.

------
obiefernandez
I'm an author.

Anyone know the most effective way for me to protest this with my publishers?

~~~
Nemo_bis
Join the Authors Alliance, they have ideas.
[https://www.authorsalliance.org/](https://www.authorsalliance.org/)

Authors should ideally never give exclusive rights to publishers, because
publishers invariably abuse them (as in this lawsuit). There are some
countermeasures. [https://www.authorsalliance.org/resources/rights-
reversion-p...](https://www.authorsalliance.org/resources/rights-reversion-
portal/) [https://sparcopen.org/our-work/author-
rights/](https://sparcopen.org/our-work/author-rights/)

~~~
obiefernandez
thank you so much!

------
EvanAnderson
Why can't the publishing industry just hurry up and die?

They provide fewer and fewer valuable services as the marginal cost of content
distribution approaches zero and they just seem more like rent seekers.

~~~
falcolas
IMO, so long as they offer pre-payment for books, they will remain in
existence. Prolific and profitable authors benefit from being paid ahead of
time for their work, which can often take months or years.

~~~
munk-a
I feel like that role is just waiting to be taken over by a kickstarter like
model though.

~~~
falcolas
It is happening (I recently got a kickstarted atlas of Mars - how fricking
cool is that?!). But then the authors also have to do their own marketing and
promotion, another care taken over by the publishers for these few authors.

~~~
simias
And editing. Good editing can be very important. There's a lot of "R&D" work
being done by publishers, I don't think it's fair to equate them to a
glorified kickstarter. Same goes for music studios and movie producers. Let's
not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

~~~
falcolas
Agreed. I'm doing some amateur proofreading for a hobby, and it's a lot of
work to properly proofread large bodies of text.

------
VonGuard
Publishers: You cannot save our books without our permission.

Also Publishers: Oh, damn.... uhm... you want THAT book? Uhm... we don't even
have a copy anymore... Sorry.

~~~
jawns
This is addressed within the press release.

IA is claiming that they're mostly making available copies of out-of-print
books that are hard to find.

But that's not true. Within their "Emergency Library," there are quite a few
books that were published relatively recently.

For instance, I'm an author of several books. I found one of my books, from
2014, which is still in print, on their list.

~~~
VonGuard
How many views does your book have on IA. Very curious to know if it's
actually impacting your sales.

~~~
jawns
I don't think it's affecting sales of my book, but that's beside the point.

Copyright is about more than sales. It's about the author having the right to
determine who gets to distribute and profit from their creative works.

That's why you'll hear about authors and their estates turning down seemingly
lucrative deals, such as movie adaptations. If the copyright holder doesn't
want their work to be used in that way, they get to say no.

And the Internet Archive's "we presume you've said yes unless you opt out"
system flies in the face of those protections.

~~~
zucker42
> Copyright is about more than sales. It's about the author having the right
> to determine who gets to distribute and profit from their creative works.

This is not sound justification for the existence of copyright. You're
asserting that an author is deserved a special personal benefit _even if that
benefit hurts the general public_. What other worker is afforded similar
protection?

In the case of the Internet Archive, they've taken a book you've already made
money on, and are lending it to one person at a time. And if it's not
affecting your sales, you are preventing other people from benefiting from the
book for no good reason.

I understand the appeal of controlling your writing, but I don't think we as a
society should be giving individual authors an unbridled license to decide how
we share and experience works.

Furthermore, the legal (and historical) basis for copyright in the United
States is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Copyright is a
special monopoly, given only to promote the _general welfare_.

This is not to say I'm against any use of copyright in principle. But the
purpose of granting such a monopoly has to be to provide incentives to create
writings are art, _not_ to protect a purported natural right. I hope my
message doesn't come off as disparaging to your desire to support yourself or
the importance of creative work.

~~~
Zonulet
Why are you making the assumption that giving our books away for free doesn't
affect our sales?

~~~
zucker42
The person I replied to said they didn't affect his sales.

------
dntbnmpls
So what? If you offered a reason for why this particular article was better,
then your comment would have added value. Otherwise it seems like a poorly
paid social media worker at the nytimes spamming here.

~~~
dang
NYT is a perfectly legitimate source for HN and the commenter was being
helpful by offering an alternate link. Please don't gum up the threads with
off-topic kvetching about sites you dislike. Also, can you please not be a
jerk in comments here?

We detached this subthread from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23381481](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23381481).

------
marvindanig
A gentle reminder that these are the same publishers who also advocate that
harvested tree pulp industry does not impact the environment. As evil as they
come. ;-)

~~~
falcolas
They... don't impact the environment. The trees they use were planted for the
sole purpose of being harvested. And new trees are planted for every tree
that's harvested.

~~If anything, they're a net positive for the environment, since they're
sequestering carbon into books.~~

EDIT: I'll acquiesce that they may not be a net positive, since there are
carbon costs associated with the entire process. But, using purpose-grown
trees is hard to consider as a net negative.

And, if we're talking about the entire process, e-books are not carbon-zero
products either.

~~~
smooth_remmy
1\. They use our land to plant a monoculture of pine trees. Zero biodiversity.

2\. They use our roads for giant logging trucks that degrade the roads and
endanger other drivers.

3\. They use our air and our water for paper processing which emits TONS of
deadly chemicals.

These publishers have blood on their hands. Force them to publish online only.
Close the tree farms, close the paper mill. Convert the tree farms into public
parks. Save Mother Earth!

~~~
blackguardx
How is it different than corn and wheat? All industrial farms are
monocultures.

~~~
smooth_remmy
Corn and wheat are essential food items. There is no "digital alternative" to
corn and wheat. No one should need to buy a physical book/newspaper in this
day and age.

These wood pulp tree farms are producing luxury consumption items for the
middle and upper class. Working class people don't read physical newspapers

~~~
Nemo_bis
> Working class people don't read physical newspapers

Sounds like something worth fixing. Expanding libraries is one way to do so.

Back in the day, the Communist Party of Italy had legions of volunteers
engaged in teaching people how to read, distributing the party's newspaper.
See also:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Literacy_Campaign](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Literacy_Campaign)

