5 ms·

>IA's lending is not unlimited, even with the National Emergency Library. The Internet Archive's Chris Freeland is the Director of Open Libraries and wrote the

by jasode 6y ago

>IA's lending is not unlimited, even with the National Emergency Library. The Internet Archive's Chris Freeland is the Director of Open Libraries and wrote the IA blog post[1] announcing the NEL change and he acknowledges that it is "unlimited"[2] -- and yet you say it isn't. I don't understand why you contradict IA's own representative. Are you affiliated with IA in an official capacity? - >Stephanie Willen Brown: So, librarian to librarian, is this unlimited simultaneous users? - >chrisfreeland: Stephanie – Yes, for the duration of our waitlist suspension![2] [1] https://blog.archive.org/2020/03/24/announcing-a-national-emergency-library-to-provide-digitized-books-to-students-and-the-public/ https://blog.archive.org/2020/03/24/announcing-a-national-em... [2] https://blog.archive.org/2020/03/24/announcing-a-national-emergency-library-to-provide-digitized-books-to-students-and-the-public/#comment-392139 https://blog.archive.org/2020/03/24/announcing-a-national-em...

zozbot234 6y ago
This is only talking about 'unlimited' simultaneous users, and the term "unlimited" should be related to its proper context. It's 'unlimited' in a sense because the former limits have been suspended. Everything else is separate, so I'm not sure why we're being told assume that IA can't do their job properly.
- jasode 6y ago
  >This is only talking about 'unlimited' simultaneous users, and the term "unlimited" should be related to its proper context. Because the "proper context" in this case is what the publishers are filing the lawsuit about. It doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree with the publishers. To the publishers, unlimited simultaneous users is the same as unlimited copies. With public libraries, they paid for limited simultaneous checkouts of digital ebooks which is limited copies and that was acceptable by publishers. In contrast, IA did not pay publishers a license to make copyrighted works available to unlimited users. The publishers didn't file lawsuits against public libraries; they filed it against IA. In your own words (since you don't object to the word "unlimited" and you thought my summary was unfair), what exactly did IA do that the publishers are filing lawsuit about?

by jasode 6y ago

zozbot234 6y ago

This is only talking about 'unlimited' simultaneous users, and the term "unlimited" should be related to its proper context. It's 'unlimited' in a sense because the former limits have been suspended. Everything else is separate, so I'm not sure why we're being told assume that IA can't do their job properly.

jasode 6y ago
>This is only talking about 'unlimited' simultaneous users, and the term "unlimited" should be related to its proper context. Because the "proper context" in this case is what the publishers are filing the lawsuit about. It doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree with the publishers. To the publishers, unlimited simultaneous users is the same as unlimited copies. With public libraries, they paid for limited simultaneous checkouts of digital ebooks which is limited copies and that was acceptable by publishers. In contrast, IA did not pay publishers a license to make copyrighted works available to unlimited users. The publishers didn't file lawsuits against public libraries; they filed it against IA. In your own words (since you don't object to the word "unlimited" and you thought my summary was unfair), what exactly did IA do that the publishers are filing lawsuit about?