15 ms·

I am an author, and several of my books were published by one of the publishers who is a party to the suit. Unlike these publishers, however, I support Control

by jawns 6y ago

I am an author, and several of my books were published by one of the publishers who is a party to the suit. Unlike these publishers, however, I support Controlled Digital Lending. I think it's closely analogous to print lending in every way that matters. It strikes the right balance between respecting the first-sale doctrine and respecting authors' copyrights. It allows lending of creative works to proceed into the 21st century under essentially the same terms that it existed prior to the digital age. To the extent that the publishers are arguing against the legality of CDL, I disagree with them. I hope the courts recognize it is already legal, or even better, I hope Congress explicitly declares it legal. Yet I think it's worth emphasizing that the Internet Archive engaged in uncontrolled digital lending through their national emergency program. By being willing to lend out more copies than they owned, they were clearly engaging in copyright infringement, and I found their justification for it wholly unconvincing. So, while I support IA insofar as it engages in Controlled Digital Lending, I oppose IA's shift toward Uncontrolled Digital Lending, and their willingness to do so, under flimsy justification, makes me concerned that they cannot be trusted to handle even CDL responsibly.

throwawaygh 6y ago
> the Internet Archive engaged in uncontrolled digital lending I thought they partnered with library systems to only lend out 1:1 physical copies that weren't on publicly accessible shelves? If so, that definitely seems like it should be kosher. But it's possible I am completely misinformed here. Agreed that completely uncontrolled digital lending is literally just piracy. If advocates want that, they need to reform copyright law if for no other reason than so that publishers and authors know the rules of the game they're playing...
- preinheimer 6y ago
  I think under normal circumstances there's some sort of 1:1 physical copy to loaned one. But under the "emergency library" they loaned out as many books as were requested.
- misnome 6y ago
  As I understand it, they said “there are probably copies out there unused, we are using those”, but had no agreement and only “partnered” later, after the announcement, as a post-hoc justification.
- SirSourdough 6y ago
  During COVID, the IA created an emergency lending program under which they would lend an unlimited number of copies of the books in their library rather than sticking to the 1:1 lending they normally allow. This resulted in a more or less immediate lawsuit from publishers claiming copyright infringement on the basis that the IA had no right to share those titles without restrictions.
- ghaff 6y ago
  There was some handwaving around all the physical books locked up in libraries that the IA took it upon themselves to virtually "borrow" but there were no actual partnerships AFAIK. (And, honestly, why stop at libraries? There's actually very little special about libraries from a copyright law perspective. There's absolutely nothing to keep me from putting a set of bookshelves in front of my house and do an honor system book lending or take a book/leave a book thing.)
themodelplumber 6y ago
I'm also an author, though not represented by one of the parties. My personal reaction was that the "uncontrolled" digital lending was still very controlled. It was media-constrained (some patrons complained about this), time-controlled, and overall a far cry from the idea of just giving books away in what most would view as an "uncontrolled" fashion. For this reason I also think use of the "uncontrolled" term is unfair, disingenuous, and even does a disservice to the public at large. It further propagates the myth that loosening already-strict controls is the same as having no controls at all.
- chadash 6y ago
  The internet archive was expressly using "Controlled Digital Lending" [0], a term that they subscribed to that seems to clearly mean "no more copies lent out a time than the number of physical copies owned". They decided to abandon this limitation. The opposite of controlled is uncontrolled, so seems like a fair term to me. [0] https://controlleddigitallending.org/ https://controlleddigitallending.org/
  - themodelplumber 6y ago
    That an opposite term exists does not mean that abandonment or a shift away from the original term mandates a shift to the opposite. If my computer stops "running very fast," that doesn't mean that it is now "running very slow." In this way, "uncontrolled" is not a fair term; rather it seems to be used for a specific, possibly unfair purpose by a specific side in this argument. The fact is, IA had specific, qualitatively-controlling controls on their lending, and anyone who checked out one of the books could see exactly what that meant. Nuances are important here.
    - gamblor956 6y ago
      In this case, "uncontrolled" digital lending is the appropriate term, because the IA admits that they removed those controls as part of the National "Emergency" Library program. Also, why does it matter if 130 libraries said they were okay with the CDL program, since that's not at issue here? Library CDL programs were still online and functioning the entire time. Only the physical facilities were closed.
bilkow 6y ago
While IA has temporarily lifted the restriction on number of copies (but not others like lending time), the complaint also goes against CDL in general, making it very dangerous. See for e.g. paragraph 8 and 10. "IA’s self-serving assertion and promotion of “Controlled Digital Lending” as both an actual legal doctrine and a justification for its infringement affronts the most basic realities of the law and the markets it propels. As a matter of markets, IA’s one-to-one conflation of print and ebooks is fundamentally flawed. Digital books are inherently different from physical books. They can fly around the world in a second; they do not degrade over time as physical books do; and they require devices to read them." https://publishers.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Filed-Complaint.pdf https://publishers.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Filed-Comp...
- nitrogen 6y ago
  they do not degrade over time as physical books do It's worth pointing out that libraries will rebind a physical book if it starts falling apart. It's weird to argue that publishers' rights should last the full term of copyright, but readers' rights only last until a book wears out.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    Why is that weird? Copyright law for centuries has provided that the copyright owner's rights last the full term of the copyright. (The copyright owner may be the publisher or the author.) A reader's right to a physical copy only lasts as long as the physical copy. If they want to extend the term of that right, they should take better care of their physical copy.
    - nitrogen 6y ago
      Modern copyright law in most places allows the creation of a backup copy of digital media to prevent loss due to wear.
      - gamblor956 6y ago
        That is actually not true in the US. The exceptions for making backup copies are limited to software (17 U.S.C. § 117(a)), and to libraries (17 U.S.C. § 108).
nitrogen 6y ago
Thank-you for your first few paragraphs. I am an avid reader and always try to buy new physical books to read to support my favorite authors. The publishers are overreaching when they try to end reasonable online lending, and it is good to see what individual authors think. For the last two paragraphs, I have to disagree with your conclusion and will try to justify my reasoning. First, have there been any numbers released for how many excess digital copies were lent, for how many books? Does anyone still have access to those uncontrolled copies? Did any of those exceed the total physical copies in their partner libraries' inventories? If the true total loans is limited and never exceeded physical copies, then it's hard to see how this aggregation of potential inventory was any more harmful than controlled lending. Second, publishers and rightsholding corporations have been fighting for their own interests for literal centuries. They cannot be relied upon to strike an appropriate balance of concerns on their own. First it was the authors they stole from. Publishers were the original pirates, and authors had to fight back. Now publishers are stealing from the public, and there is often nobody to fight back on behalf of the public. Corporate cooyright terms now exceed the lifetime of most people. Publishers fight to erode basic fair use. Media companies bully others to build automated extralefsl systems to harass independent producers and reviewers. The balance of power is far too much in the hands of publishers, and the IA and other libraries need support when they try to act as a counterbalance. Finally, this was a very limited duration experent in a very unprecedented time. How can you not support an organization that reaches out to help the disadvantaged during a global pandemic and lockdown? There was no taking from authors. No sales were lost -- people like me will buy books no matter how easy they are to borrow. This was humanirarian work at its digital best.
- jawns 6y ago
  I appreciate your thoughtful response and want to address a couple of points. I am an author, but I am also an advocate for copyright reform. I would like to see copyright duration changed to something more sensible, such as its pre-1976 length (28 years + optional 28 year renewal). Yet as much as I support copyright reform, I also think it has to be done through legislation, not through the IA deciding the publishers have too much power and thumbing their nose at copyright law. Regarding your assertion, "There was no taking from authors." One thing that I see widespread confusion about, even among educated people, is what gets taken away from authors when copyright is violated. Yes, loss of potential sales is one thing that affects authors when copyright is violated. But beyond that, what actually gets taken away is the right itself. Copyright gives authors the exclusive authority, for a limited time, to publish and reproduce their creative works. If the IA violates copyright, then even if it doesn't take away sales, it still takes away the right itself. It's important to recognize that the intellectual property right has value in itself, outside of how sales are affected. I am all for humanitarian organizations helping people during a pandemic. But IA should do so by lending out things it owns and has a right to lend, rather than lending out things it doesn't own and doesn't have a right to lend.
AsyncAwait 6y ago
I find it interesting that the programming community is willing to 'donate' billions of dollars worth of value as FLOSS every year, many of which are for tools used by authors also. Yet even during a pandemic, when visiting a physical library can literally be life threatening, most mainstream authors, (there are exceptions, but few and far between), still hold onto their "intellectual property rights" with all they can. Is there an industry that gives a similar/larger amount away for free in value? Serious question. The only other thing I can think of is various volunteering doctors and the like, but I am specifically interested in terms of "intellectual property" value produced.
- jjcon 6y ago
  We have the luxury of having job security and very high salaries, artists and authors by large do not - if IP was abandoned and nobody could make money on software we would all be calling for lawsuits. Just because one medium is easier to pirate doesn’t mean it deserves to be pirated. > Yet even during a pandemic, when visiting a physical library can literally be life threatening Nearly all libraries already have digital lending programs that are legal and controlled... IA just distributed pirated copies.
  - AsyncAwait 6y ago
    > We have the luxury of having job security and very high salaries I think this view is colored by SV salaries. There are many places where programmers are paid in line with other kinds of skilled labor. > if IP was abandoned and nobody could make money on software we would all be calling for lawsuits Doubt it. Quite a few companies already make money on integrating solutions, support and consultancy services. A great amount of software already has very lax licenses. But I am not calling for that. I am simply asking for a bit of compassion during an unprecedented situation. > Just because one medium is easier to pirate Are you saying books are easier to pirate than software? If so, I have news for you. > Nearly all libraries already have digital lending programs that are legal and controlled Quite a few don't or the process is super convoluted, proprietary, requires plugins, mobile apps, Windows only etc. > IA just distributed pirated copies. There were certain restrictions in place, like time restrictions, but I guess this shows there's no appeasing the copyright lobby so next time IA might as well place no restrictions on it whatsoever. The backslash is the same.
sp332 6y ago
uncontrolled digital lending The copies were still DRM'd and still expired after two weeks.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
musicale 6y ago
> I am an author, and several of my books were published by one of the publishers who is a party to the suit What is your estimate of the actual monetary damage that you suffered from the IA's action?
- jawns 6y ago
  I'm going to give you a slightly long-winded answer, but I think it's important to spell it out, because there is a lot of confusion about how the IA's scheme affects authors. When an author writes a book, the laws grants them copyright, which means that for a specified period of time, they get the exclusive right to make copies (or authorize copies be made) of that work. Because they own the copyright, they are able to benefit from the sale of those books. So when we talk about damages from copyright infringement, it's important to recognize that apart from whatever effect that infringement has on sales, the copyright itself is being stolen from the author, and that right has value. Granted, it is much harder to calculate monetary damages on the theft of a right than it is to calculate monetary damages related to lost sales, but that doesn't mean the right is worthless. I found this section of the U.S. Code that prescribes statutory damages as a remedy in lieu of actual damages, presumably in recognition of the fact that copyright itself has value apart from lost sales: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504 All that said, I am fairly confident that I did not lose any measurable sales because IA chose to put my 2014 book in its national emergency library. But it infringed on my copyright nonetheless.
  - account42 6y ago
    > So when we talk about damages from copyright infringement, it's important to recognize that apart from whatever effect that infringement has on sales, the copyright itself is being stolen from the author, and that right has value. The author is only allowed to violate everyone elses right to freely share information in order to encourage the creation of more works. Has the NEL in any way reduced the creation of new works?
  - betterunix2 6y ago
    I am going to give you a long winded answer, because this is important to spell out as well. Copyright is dead and the various efforts to keep the idea alive and relevant are nothing more than the desperate attempts of certain industries to avoid finding a new business model when faced with new technology. Copyright only worked because for most of its history copying at scale required specialized industrial equipment, and one could expect that anyone who could make an investment in that equipment could afford to pay the teams of lawyers needed to work out copyrights. There was never an expectation that an individual would have to consider copyrights when using their personal tools in their own home. Deciding whether or not an action infringes on a copyright ultimately requires a lawsuit of some kind, which is what IA is now involved in. Individual authors were not the intended beneficiaries either, and for the most part authors receive only a small fraction of the money publishers make on their work (or in the case of scientific publishing, nothing whatsoever). The reality is that today's technology allows individuals to copy on a global scale from the privacy of their homes, using tools that are almost universally available. Copying is a normal part of the use of a computer. The majority of people do not spend a millisecond considering the copyright implications of sending a copy of something they were reading to someone else. It is beyond unreasonable to expect that ordinary people, who do not work for some copyright industry, are going to consult with lawyers every time they use their computer for something common and normal. IA is an organization with lawyers available to advise on copyrights, and with the ability to fight a copyright case in court. On some level IA could be expected to work within copyrights, and in fact IA has done so by, among other things, imposing artificial limits on how many copies they will make available at a time, and forcing their users to use a copy-restriction system (DRM). You can complain all you want about copyrights but IA went out of their way to try to work within the system. So-called "lost sales" are a red herring. There is no way of knowing whether or not a person would have paid for something if they had not received it for free. It also makes no difference how much money an author might have made if the world were different: we live in a world with the Internet and with computers in everyone's homes, and that means people are going to copy and they will do so without paying attention to copyrights. The sooner society as a whole accepts that fact the sooner we can stop wasting our resources on obsolete ideas and start building a new system that works well with the technology we have.
6510 6y ago
I get that it is in your interest to get paid as much as possible for your work. It makes sense for you to want this. It is in my interest to not pay to read, watch or listen to anything. Important people talked a lot about these opposing interests. In the end google books was killed, we were not allowed to read stuff written by dead people and we got to pay for this highly obnoxious global copyright gestapo who for example managed to equate the BitTorrent protocol with theft. The readers got.... uhhh.... well.... to pay for it? The deal we got is about as lame as to abolish copyright? There is of course the collective interest as well. You nor me aren't all that important are we? Should we both be interested in well-red people or not? Do we benefit from others knowing stuff? Or is it perhaps harmful? Thanks to modern administration and other automations fewer people can do more work. There really are a lot of job openings but they all require a ton of reading. I think we [some how] have to migrate to a subscription or patreon like system where you would get paid to write by the chapter. The quality would no doubt suffer but the model where civilization [maybe perhaps] owes you money doesn't work. Maybe we can agree on how much you should be paid after you are dead? Or wait! We could agree that in the after life no one should enjoy the privilege to use ownership of your works to prevent reading of it.

by jawns 6y ago

throwawaygh 6y ago

> the Internet Archive engaged in uncontrolled digital lending I thought they partnered with library systems to only lend out 1:1 physical copies that weren't on publicly accessible shelves? If so, that definitely seems like it should be kosher. But it's possible I am completely misinformed here. Agreed that completely uncontrolled digital lending is literally just piracy. If advocates want that, they need to reform copyright law if for no other reason than so that publishers and authors know the rules of the game they're playing...

preinheimer 6y ago
I think under normal circumstances there's some sort of 1:1 physical copy to loaned one. But under the "emergency library" they loaned out as many books as were requested.
misnome 6y ago
As I understand it, they said “there are probably copies out there unused, we are using those”, but had no agreement and only “partnered” later, after the announcement, as a post-hoc justification.
SirSourdough 6y ago
During COVID, the IA created an emergency lending program under which they would lend an unlimited number of copies of the books in their library rather than sticking to the 1:1 lending they normally allow. This resulted in a more or less immediate lawsuit from publishers claiming copyright infringement on the basis that the IA had no right to share those titles without restrictions.
ghaff 6y ago
There was some handwaving around all the physical books locked up in libraries that the IA took it upon themselves to virtually "borrow" but there were no actual partnerships AFAIK. (And, honestly, why stop at libraries? There's actually very little special about libraries from a copyright law perspective. There's absolutely nothing to keep me from putting a set of bookshelves in front of my house and do an honor system book lending or take a book/leave a book thing.)

themodelplumber 6y ago

I'm also an author, though not represented by one of the parties. My personal reaction was that the "uncontrolled" digital lending was still very controlled. It was media-constrained (some patrons complained about this), time-controlled, and overall a far cry from the idea of just giving books away in what most would view as an "uncontrolled" fashion. For this reason I also think use of the "uncontrolled" term is unfair, disingenuous, and even does a disservice to the public at large. It further propagates the myth that loosening already-strict controls is the same as having no controls at all.

chadash 6y ago
The internet archive was expressly using "Controlled Digital Lending" [0], a term that they subscribed to that seems to clearly mean "no more copies lent out a time than the number of physical copies owned". They decided to abandon this limitation. The opposite of controlled is uncontrolled, so seems like a fair term to me. [0] https://controlleddigitallending.org/ https://controlleddigitallending.org/
- themodelplumber 6y ago
  That an opposite term exists does not mean that abandonment or a shift away from the original term mandates a shift to the opposite. If my computer stops "running very fast," that doesn't mean that it is now "running very slow." In this way, "uncontrolled" is not a fair term; rather it seems to be used for a specific, possibly unfair purpose by a specific side in this argument. The fact is, IA had specific, qualitatively-controlling controls on their lending, and anyone who checked out one of the books could see exactly what that meant. Nuances are important here.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    In this case, "uncontrolled" digital lending is the appropriate term, because the IA admits that they removed those controls as part of the National "Emergency" Library program. Also, why does it matter if 130 libraries said they were okay with the CDL program, since that's not at issue here? Library CDL programs were still online and functioning the entire time. Only the physical facilities were closed.

bilkow 6y ago

While IA has temporarily lifted the restriction on number of copies (but not others like lending time), the complaint also goes against CDL in general, making it very dangerous. See for e.g. paragraph 8 and 10. "IA’s self-serving assertion and promotion of “Controlled Digital Lending” as both an actual legal doctrine and a justification for its infringement affronts the most basic realities of the law and the markets it propels. As a matter of markets, IA’s one-to-one conflation of print and ebooks is fundamentally flawed. Digital books are inherently different from physical books. They can fly around the world in a second; they do not degrade over time as physical books do; and they require devices to read them." https://publishers.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Filed-Complaint.pdf https://publishers.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Filed-Comp...

nitrogen 6y ago
they do not degrade over time as physical books do It's worth pointing out that libraries will rebind a physical book if it starts falling apart. It's weird to argue that publishers' rights should last the full term of copyright, but readers' rights only last until a book wears out.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  Why is that weird? Copyright law for centuries has provided that the copyright owner's rights last the full term of the copyright. (The copyright owner may be the publisher or the author.) A reader's right to a physical copy only lasts as long as the physical copy. If they want to extend the term of that right, they should take better care of their physical copy.
  - nitrogen 6y ago
    Modern copyright law in most places allows the creation of a backup copy of digital media to prevent loss due to wear.
    - gamblor956 6y ago
      That is actually not true in the US. The exceptions for making backup copies are limited to software (17 U.S.C. § 117(a)), and to libraries (17 U.S.C. § 108).

nitrogen 6y ago

Thank-you for your first few paragraphs. I am an avid reader and always try to buy new physical books to read to support my favorite authors. The publishers are overreaching when they try to end reasonable online lending, and it is good to see what individual authors think. For the last two paragraphs, I have to disagree with your conclusion and will try to justify my reasoning. First, have there been any numbers released for how many excess digital copies were lent, for how many books? Does anyone still have access to those uncontrolled copies? Did any of those exceed the total physical copies in their partner libraries' inventories? If the true total loans is limited and never exceeded physical copies, then it's hard to see how this aggregation of potential inventory was any more harmful than controlled lending. Second, publishers and rightsholding corporations have been fighting for their own interests for literal centuries. They cannot be relied upon to strike an appropriate balance of concerns on their own. First it was the authors they stole from. Publishers were the original pirates, and authors had to fight back. Now publishers are stealing from the public, and there is often nobody to fight back on behalf of the public. Corporate cooyright terms now exceed the lifetime of most people. Publishers fight to erode basic fair use. Media companies bully others to build automated extralefsl systems to harass independent producers and reviewers. The balance of power is far too much in the hands of publishers, and the IA and other libraries need support when they try to act as a counterbalance. Finally, this was a very limited duration experent in a very unprecedented time. How can you not support an organization that reaches out to help the disadvantaged during a global pandemic and lockdown? There was no taking from authors. No sales were lost -- people like me will buy books no matter how easy they are to borrow. This was humanirarian work at its digital best.

jawns 6y ago
I appreciate your thoughtful response and want to address a couple of points. I am an author, but I am also an advocate for copyright reform. I would like to see copyright duration changed to something more sensible, such as its pre-1976 length (28 years + optional 28 year renewal). Yet as much as I support copyright reform, I also think it has to be done through legislation, not through the IA deciding the publishers have too much power and thumbing their nose at copyright law. Regarding your assertion, "There was no taking from authors." One thing that I see widespread confusion about, even among educated people, is what gets taken away from authors when copyright is violated. Yes, loss of potential sales is one thing that affects authors when copyright is violated. But beyond that, what actually gets taken away is the right itself. Copyright gives authors the exclusive authority, for a limited time, to publish and reproduce their creative works. If the IA violates copyright, then even if it doesn't take away sales, it still takes away the right itself. It's important to recognize that the intellectual property right has value in itself, outside of how sales are affected. I am all for humanitarian organizations helping people during a pandemic. But IA should do so by lending out things it owns and has a right to lend, rather than lending out things it doesn't own and doesn't have a right to lend.

AsyncAwait 6y ago

I find it interesting that the programming community is willing to 'donate' billions of dollars worth of value as FLOSS every year, many of which are for tools used by authors also. Yet even during a pandemic, when visiting a physical library can literally be life threatening, most mainstream authors, (there are exceptions, but few and far between), still hold onto their "intellectual property rights" with all they can. Is there an industry that gives a similar/larger amount away for free in value? Serious question. The only other thing I can think of is various volunteering doctors and the like, but I am specifically interested in terms of "intellectual property" value produced.

jjcon 6y ago
We have the luxury of having job security and very high salaries, artists and authors by large do not - if IP was abandoned and nobody could make money on software we would all be calling for lawsuits. Just because one medium is easier to pirate doesn’t mean it deserves to be pirated. > Yet even during a pandemic, when visiting a physical library can literally be life threatening Nearly all libraries already have digital lending programs that are legal and controlled... IA just distributed pirated copies.
- AsyncAwait 6y ago
  > We have the luxury of having job security and very high salaries I think this view is colored by SV salaries. There are many places where programmers are paid in line with other kinds of skilled labor. > if IP was abandoned and nobody could make money on software we would all be calling for lawsuits Doubt it. Quite a few companies already make money on integrating solutions, support and consultancy services. A great amount of software already has very lax licenses. But I am not calling for that. I am simply asking for a bit of compassion during an unprecedented situation. > Just because one medium is easier to pirate Are you saying books are easier to pirate than software? If so, I have news for you. > Nearly all libraries already have digital lending programs that are legal and controlled Quite a few don't or the process is super convoluted, proprietary, requires plugins, mobile apps, Windows only etc. > IA just distributed pirated copies. There were certain restrictions in place, like time restrictions, but I guess this shows there's no appeasing the copyright lobby so next time IA might as well place no restrictions on it whatsoever. The backslash is the same.

sp332 6y ago

uncontrolled digital lending The copies were still DRM'd and still expired after two weeks.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

musicale 6y ago

> I am an author, and several of my books were published by one of the publishers who is a party to the suit What is your estimate of the actual monetary damage that you suffered from the IA's action?

jawns 6y ago
I'm going to give you a slightly long-winded answer, but I think it's important to spell it out, because there is a lot of confusion about how the IA's scheme affects authors. When an author writes a book, the laws grants them copyright, which means that for a specified period of time, they get the exclusive right to make copies (or authorize copies be made) of that work. Because they own the copyright, they are able to benefit from the sale of those books. So when we talk about damages from copyright infringement, it's important to recognize that apart from whatever effect that infringement has on sales, the copyright itself is being stolen from the author, and that right has value. Granted, it is much harder to calculate monetary damages on the theft of a right than it is to calculate monetary damages related to lost sales, but that doesn't mean the right is worthless. I found this section of the U.S. Code that prescribes statutory damages as a remedy in lieu of actual damages, presumably in recognition of the fact that copyright itself has value apart from lost sales: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504 All that said, I am fairly confident that I did not lose any measurable sales because IA chose to put my 2014 book in its national emergency library. But it infringed on my copyright nonetheless.
- account42 6y ago
  > So when we talk about damages from copyright infringement, it's important to recognize that apart from whatever effect that infringement has on sales, the copyright itself is being stolen from the author, and that right has value. The author is only allowed to violate everyone elses right to freely share information in order to encourage the creation of more works. Has the NEL in any way reduced the creation of new works?
- betterunix2 6y ago
  I am going to give you a long winded answer, because this is important to spell out as well. Copyright is dead and the various efforts to keep the idea alive and relevant are nothing more than the desperate attempts of certain industries to avoid finding a new business model when faced with new technology. Copyright only worked because for most of its history copying at scale required specialized industrial equipment, and one could expect that anyone who could make an investment in that equipment could afford to pay the teams of lawyers needed to work out copyrights. There was never an expectation that an individual would have to consider copyrights when using their personal tools in their own home. Deciding whether or not an action infringes on a copyright ultimately requires a lawsuit of some kind, which is what IA is now involved in. Individual authors were not the intended beneficiaries either, and for the most part authors receive only a small fraction of the money publishers make on their work (or in the case of scientific publishing, nothing whatsoever). The reality is that today's technology allows individuals to copy on a global scale from the privacy of their homes, using tools that are almost universally available. Copying is a normal part of the use of a computer. The majority of people do not spend a millisecond considering the copyright implications of sending a copy of something they were reading to someone else. It is beyond unreasonable to expect that ordinary people, who do not work for some copyright industry, are going to consult with lawyers every time they use their computer for something common and normal. IA is an organization with lawyers available to advise on copyrights, and with the ability to fight a copyright case in court. On some level IA could be expected to work within copyrights, and in fact IA has done so by, among other things, imposing artificial limits on how many copies they will make available at a time, and forcing their users to use a copy-restriction system (DRM). You can complain all you want about copyrights but IA went out of their way to try to work within the system. So-called "lost sales" are a red herring. There is no way of knowing whether or not a person would have paid for something if they had not received it for free. It also makes no difference how much money an author might have made if the world were different: we live in a world with the Internet and with computers in everyone's homes, and that means people are going to copy and they will do so without paying attention to copyrights. The sooner society as a whole accepts that fact the sooner we can stop wasting our resources on obsolete ideas and start building a new system that works well with the technology we have.

6510 6y ago

I get that it is in your interest to get paid as much as possible for your work. It makes sense for you to want this. It is in my interest to not pay to read, watch or listen to anything. Important people talked a lot about these opposing interests. In the end google books was killed, we were not allowed to read stuff written by dead people and we got to pay for this highly obnoxious global copyright gestapo who for example managed to equate the BitTorrent protocol with theft. The readers got.... uhhh.... well.... to pay for it? The deal we got is about as lame as to abolish copyright? There is of course the collective interest as well. You nor me aren't all that important are we? Should we both be interested in well-red people or not? Do we benefit from others knowing stuff? Or is it perhaps harmful? Thanks to modern administration and other automations fewer people can do more work. There really are a lot of job openings but they all require a ton of reading. I think we [some how] have to migrate to a subscription or patreon like system where you would get paid to write by the chapter. The quality would no doubt suffer but the model where civilization [maybe perhaps] owes you money doesn't work. Maybe we can agree on how much you should be paid after you are dead? Or wait! We could agree that in the after life no one should enjoy the privilege to use ownership of your works to prevent reading of it.