4 ms·
I understand you, and vehemently disagree. There is a real and serious risk of having ALL published material eventually fall under "licensed use" instead of ow
by horsawlarway 6y ago
I understand you, and vehemently disagree.
There is a real and serious risk of having ALL published material eventually fall under "licensed use" instead of ownership.
We're rapidly tipping towards a society where you pay rent to license everything, and own nothing.
In the short term, I find this model abusive. In the long I think it guarantees we will have a competitive disadvantage against countries that don't enforce this style of licensing.
- patrickhogan1 6y agoIA does NOT own the books. IA is only referencing that they own some of the books to distract readers. The vast majority of books IA is “lending” come from the purported “endorsement” from 130 libraries. Yet there is no explanation if the endorsement means a general “Hey we love IA” or “a contractual relationship that allows IA to lend out copyrighted works licensed by the endorsing library”
- icebraining 6y agoThat was only during the Emergency event, when the libraries were closed, and which they already ended.
- zorpner 6y agoEvery book IA lent, they physically owned at least one copy of. Suspension of waitlists meant that they were lending more copies than they owned; copies physically held by partner libraries.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- tohmeiphun 6y agoYou'll own the things you create.
- Silhouette 6y agoYou make a reasonable point, so let's accept it for the sake of this discussion. Shouldn't the response then be to update copyright law, taking into account modern trends in technology and society? Surely the answer can't be to let one private organisation decide it's above the law and infringe with impunity.
- nitrogen 6y agoSometimes the path to legalization of something requires ongoing and widespread illegality before the question will even be considered.
- Silhouette 6y agoThat's not a strong argument, IMHO, since it would similarly condone any other law-breaking activity where the perpetrator disagrees with the law. It's not as if copyright wasn't controversial before or the IA's actions here have any realistic prospect of moving the needle. If you're talking about civil disobedience, that's a different matter, but one of the key things about effective civil disobedience is that large numbers of people have to break the law and accept the penalty in order to overwhelm the system and thus show that the law does not have popular support.
- account42 6y agoYou don't get to large numbers of people disregarding the law before first having a few.
- Silhouette 6y agoI suspect you're glossing over the accept the penalty part of my previous comment, which is quite important. Besides that, how many other Internet Archives do you think will follow the one we've been discussing by also flagrantly violating both the letter and the spirit of copyright law?