3 ms·
Exactly. I support what the IA does with web sites because they don't do it in a way that hurts the web sites. But this is a direct decision to turn into someth
by xhkkffbf 6y ago
Exactly. I support what the IA does with web sites because they don't do it in a way that hurts the web sites. But this is a direct decision to turn into something that's indistinguishable from Pirate Bay. It's almost mocking to call this "controlled digital lending" because it's uncontrolled. There's no limit to the number of books being circulated.
As an author, this will be yet another reason not to write books. The only people who will be able to afford to write will be the independently wealthy and the hobbyists.
It's sad to watch the IA descend into such anti-artist hatred. Copyright is like a union for writers. To see them become a copyright denialist is so sad.
- MattGaiser 6y agoOr every book will require a sponsor/need to promote something. That is what I really fear. Every book becomes a more subtle advertising piece.
- njharman 6y agoBooks music art all flourished just fine before copyright was invented.
- Silhouette 6y agoThat is debatable. We remember a few high-profile works that have stood the test of time, but how many Mozart symphonies or Mona Lisas has human society produced in its past, and how does that compare with the quality and quantity of new works produced today?
- hombre_fatal 6y agoYet the works everyone wants to actually consume aren't the weekendware creative-commons hobby projects, so it's clear to me that copyright (well, IP in general) is responsible for the most compelling content. Nothing is stopping people from releasing their passion projects to the world without strings attached.
- mcguire 6y agoLike every website?
- jjcon 6y agoWell said, IA wants this to look like a conflict with ‘big publishing’ but it is so much more than that - they are outright attacking artists and authors everywhere.
- kmeisthax 6y agoInternet Archive doesn't have "anti-artist hatred", they think you should have first sale rights on digital versions of physical books. They have a legal argument for it, which I think is stupid, but it's a bit different from the 20,000 people on HN here arguing about how artists shouldn't own anything. Speaking of which... copyright is not a union for writers. A union is a union for writers. Copyright creates an artificial market for their output, but it largely does not dictate how they are paid, only that they must authorize copying and distribution of the work. There are plenty of extremely exploitative publishing agreements out there that copyright law has zero qualms about.