7 ms·

> That's just how it works in a "normal" library so why would it be any different? Because these are not physical books. You can give access to them to as many

> That's just how it works in a "normal" library so why would it be any different? Because these are not physical books. You can give access to them to as many people as you want at the same time.

dewey 8y ago
That not unlimited people can rent the same title at the same time is probably a licensing issue (as they only purchases x copies for lending). The DRM in this case is mostly about the time limit on the rental though. If you would get access to the title indefinitely it would be giving away not renting?
- zandl 8y ago
  The whole project is about preserving information for current and future generations, so what place does limiting the availability of it have in history? It’s more likely it’ll just be lost due to DRM when no one can figure it out in the future. It’s the digital equivalent of losing the books, though due to someone being more concerned about their pocket book today than for future generations.
  - Wowfunhappy 8y ago
    Would you prefer that the Internet Archive not make these books available at all? That was likely the alternative possibility. I assume that the Internet Archive is holding onto the original, DRM-Free master copies. That's a job I trust the Internet Archive with, even if ideally I wish the data was more distributed.
    - zandl 8y ago
      I would actually, because it sets a bar that if you’d like your book to be preserved then you need to make a choice, is your book so valuable that it should be free? If not, there’s plenty of other places for DRM books. What they’re doing instead is trying to have it both ways.
      - zorpner 8y ago
        They are having it both ways. A non-encrypted copy is preserved digitally within the Internet Archive, and that copy is made available, now, in the only way it legally can be. Once that copyright expires, the Archive can make the content freely available to all, having already been digitized.
        org3432 8y ago
        In some cases the content doesn't belong to the person restricting it however, they're effectively copyrighting the digital medium, do you think that's right for them to DRM it? e.g. clearly the authors of these texts aren't around any more: http://blog.archive.org/2018/10/04/worlds-largest-collection-of-tibetan-buddhist-literature/ http://blog.archive.org/2018/10/04/worlds-largest-collection...
        Wowfunhappy 8y ago
        > In some cases the content doesn't belong to the person restricting it however, they're effectively copyrighting the digital medium, do you think that's right for them to DRM it? No, I don't think it's right for a separate entity to usurp this kind of authority, but that's not really a battle the Internet Archive can win. They are doing their best within the restrictions placed on them. If you'd like to lobby for more sane copyright laws, please go ahead, I'll be behind you 100%. That does not negate the good being done by the Internet Archive right now.
        org3432 8y ago
        It's not copyright law or authority, the Internet Archive can just say no. They can't be forced to take material.

> That's just how it works in a "normal" library so why would it be any different? Because these are not physical books. You can give access to them to as many people as you want at the same time.

dewey 8y ago

That not unlimited people can rent the same title at the same time is probably a licensing issue (as they only purchases x copies for lending). The DRM in this case is mostly about the time limit on the rental though. If you would get access to the title indefinitely it would be giving away not renting?

zandl 8y ago
The whole project is about preserving information for current and future generations, so what place does limiting the availability of it have in history? It’s more likely it’ll just be lost due to DRM when no one can figure it out in the future. It’s the digital equivalent of losing the books, though due to someone being more concerned about their pocket book today than for future generations.
- Wowfunhappy 8y ago
  Would you prefer that the Internet Archive not make these books available at all? That was likely the alternative possibility. I assume that the Internet Archive is holding onto the original, DRM-Free master copies. That's a job I trust the Internet Archive with, even if ideally I wish the data was more distributed.
  - zandl 8y ago
    I would actually, because it sets a bar that if you’d like your book to be preserved then you need to make a choice, is your book so valuable that it should be free? If not, there’s plenty of other places for DRM books. What they’re doing instead is trying to have it both ways.
    - zorpner 8y ago
      They are having it both ways. A non-encrypted copy is preserved digitally within the Internet Archive, and that copy is made available, now, in the only way it legally can be. Once that copyright expires, the Archive can make the content freely available to all, having already been digitized.
      - org3432 8y ago
        In some cases the content doesn't belong to the person restricting it however, they're effectively copyrighting the digital medium, do you think that's right for them to DRM it? e.g. clearly the authors of these texts aren't around any more: http://blog.archive.org/2018/10/04/worlds-largest-collection-of-tibetan-buddhist-literature/ http://blog.archive.org/2018/10/04/worlds-largest-collection...
        Wowfunhappy 8y ago
        > In some cases the content doesn't belong to the person restricting it however, they're effectively copyrighting the digital medium, do you think that's right for them to DRM it? No, I don't think it's right for a separate entity to usurp this kind of authority, but that's not really a battle the Internet Archive can win. They are doing their best within the restrictions placed on them. If you'd like to lobby for more sane copyright laws, please go ahead, I'll be behind you 100%. That does not negate the good being done by the Internet Archive right now.
        org3432 8y ago
        It's not copyright law or authority, the Internet Archive can just say no. They can't be forced to take material.