3 ms·
The argument is whether actions like this are the best way to "return sanity to copyright law," though, right? It seems to me there's a lot of space between "et
by chipotle_coyote 6y ago
The argument is whether actions like this are the best way to "return sanity to copyright law," though, right? It seems to me there's a lot of space between "eternally extending copyright to keep the first Mickey Mouse cartoons from entering the public domain" and "anyone should be able to do whatever they want with other people's work at any point regardless of the creator's objections."
- toomuchtodo 6y agoThere is a lot of space, which is why you anchor with the opening salvo and then find middle ground. Keep in mind, the Internet Archive only opened the “National Emergency Library” during a global pandemic. Under business as usual, they put limits on access to scanned works. Copyright isn’t an inalienable right. It was established for the public good, and up for renegotiation at any time. Now is one of those times.
- fphhotchips 6y agoAn "opening salvo" has to be more than just throwing ammunition at your enemies. The "but global pandemic" argument will not be very convincing when they roll out authors that also wanted to eat during the pandemic. No matter what you consider to be the morally correct outcome here, this seems to have been a very risky way to go about things.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago> when they roll out authors that also wanted to eat during the pandemic. This is a tired argument. Please prove authors experienced lost sales due to the emergency library IA offered.
- fphhotchips 6y agoI don't have to. The publishers do. And I'll bet they can make a better legal argument than "oh we just wanted to because pandemic".