3 ms·

This is very unfortunate. I agree they probably infringed on copyright, but I also think they were in the right. If we respected the law in this emergency when

This is very unfortunate. I agree they probably infringed on copyright, but I also think they were in the right. If we respected the law in this emergency when none of our social systems could cope with unprecedented crisis, the human costs would mount even higher. The publishers will continue to do what's in their interest (immorally imo), but what they could have done instead was jump onboard and say yes these books will be offered for the duration of the crisis. Of course, I feel that publishing should be at least partially publicly funded so that copyright wouldn't be a concern and we could read everything for free above production cost and authors would get paid. However, the private system should have at least tried to legitimize itself by providing necessary services for the public instead of continuing to deprive people of what they need out of concern for their own profits.

orev 6y ago
IA could have easily coordinated with publishers beforehand and got them on board as a good publicity opportunity. Instead they did it on their own, very clearly violating the copyrights. Like it or not, copyright holders can set whatever terms they want on the material they own. That includes making choices that you think are dumb or bad for business. It’s not the job of copyright to ensure companies serve the public good or even do things that keep them in business. That’s up to the market.
- clairity 6y ago
  we are the market, and the market is expressing its will (here and elsewhere), like it or not.
  - orev 6y ago
    The only decision the market is allowed to make is “do I buy this, yes or no?” It (you) doesn’t get to change the rules whenever it feels like it when you don’t feel like paying for something.
    - clairity 6y ago
      no, that’s a pedagogical model of a market. real markets are rich in information channels going every which way that also inform price, product, etc. (i.e., marketing). real markets are highly and nonlinearly dynamic.
- tehjoker 6y ago
  My contention is not that the pro-business choices are not merely dumb or bad for business, but amoral and obviously threaten the well being of society during a pandemic. One could make the argument that society would be better off of their ability to set terms was dramatically pared back even in non-pandemic times.

orev 6y ago

IA could have easily coordinated with publishers beforehand and got them on board as a good publicity opportunity. Instead they did it on their own, very clearly violating the copyrights. Like it or not, copyright holders can set whatever terms they want on the material they own. That includes making choices that you think are dumb or bad for business. It’s not the job of copyright to ensure companies serve the public good or even do things that keep them in business. That’s up to the market.

clairity 6y ago
we are the market, and the market is expressing its will (here and elsewhere), like it or not.
- orev 6y ago
  The only decision the market is allowed to make is “do I buy this, yes or no?” It (you) doesn’t get to change the rules whenever it feels like it when you don’t feel like paying for something.
  - clairity 6y ago
    no, that’s a pedagogical model of a market. real markets are rich in information channels going every which way that also inform price, product, etc. (i.e., marketing). real markets are highly and nonlinearly dynamic.
tehjoker 6y ago
My contention is not that the pro-business choices are not merely dumb or bad for business, but amoral and obviously threaten the well being of society during a pandemic. One could make the argument that society would be better off of their ability to set terms was dramatically pared back even in non-pandemic times.