4 ms·

I really like much of the IA's past work, but this latest battle with the publishers is just ill advised. If people worked long and hard on something, they dese

I really like much of the IA's past work, but this latest battle with the publishers is just ill advised. If people worked long and hard on something, they deserve the right to prevent it from being given away for free.

dcow 4y ago
No they don’t. Period. We’ll be a healthier society once we get past the idea that you can, well, own ideas.
- healsdata 4y ago
  What alternative model for funding the creation of said "ideas" would you propose? If everything is free as soon as it exists, how do we ensure equitable access to creation?
rjh29 4y ago
That runs counter to the entire concept of a library. Which is what the Internet Archive is.
- PhasmaFelis 4y ago
  Authors get paid for library books. (They often cost quite a bit more than the same book sold to an individual.) An author/publisher can choose not to sell to a particular library if they really want to.
  - adamc 4y ago
    They do, but publishers have been tightening the screws on libraries too.
  - jacobolus 4y ago
    Libraries pay the ordinary retail price (or less from a bulk discount). They sometimes buy books with (more expensive) sturdier binding, expecting it to be used more heavily. Authors cannot stop libraries from buying their books and putting them on the shelf. Or are you talking about ebooks?
  - jrochkind1 4y ago
    This is not generally true in the USA, where the "first sale doctrine" gives libraries (or anyone else) the legal right to buy an ordinary consumer copy of a physical printed book, and lend it out (for free or rent) as many times as they want, without the permission of the copyright holder and without paying them an additional fee. In the USA, if any library pays more for a "library" price, that's voluntary. They have the complete legal right to buy an ordinary copy from any consumer channel that will sell ot them (new or used re-sold) and lend it out. And this is not a special right of things classed as libraries, it's a right anyone has. Traditionally, when it comes to physical copies, anyway. In other countries, the "first-sale doctrine" does not exist, and this may not be true. I think in Europe libraries do pay "licensing" fees to be able to loan out books, that get redistributed to copyright holders based on use statistics, sort of how music playing licensing does work in the USA too. So argument here about whether libraries really do this or not may just be confusion over the fact that things really do work differently in different countries. I suppose that gives us the opportunity to compare... has the right to loan out legally purchased books without licenses damaged the incentive to write books in the USA compared to Europe? Like even back in pre-ebook days? I suspect not.
    - hadlock 4y ago
      Libraries pay more for "library binding" copies of books, when available
      - jrochkind1 4y ago
        They may choose to, because they are willing to pay more for the longer-lasting binding. Or it may help them remain on good terms with publishers. While I'm technically a librarian, I haven't worked in this area or at an institution where it's relevant for a long time now, so actually don't know personally how common this is. But if libraries choose to pay more for a better binding, that is because of their determination that the value is worth it to them, not because there is any law that says they must to give more compensation to copyright holders. Nor is it proportionate to how many times they lend out the book or anything. In the USA libraries are completely legally allowed to take a copy they bought legally anywhere at all, including a used booksale from someone else, and loan it out as many times as they want, without needing a license or to make any additional payments to original copyright holder. I am so so positive of this (although I am not a lawyer).
- healsdata 4y ago
  The current legal issue around the Internet Archive's library came to a head because IA decided to remove restrictions on lending. They changed from the "we have one copy, so we lend one copy" model that libraries follow to "we have a one copy, so everyone can have a copy at the same time" for a period of time. Had they not done that, the publishers knew they faced an uphill battle because of the first-sale doctrine. But once Pandora's box was opened, the publishers saw their chance to stamp out the whole thing by arguing "well they did it once, what's to stop them from doing it again?" IA made a well-intentioned but ill-advised decision.
r053bud 4y ago
So libraries should not exist?
- PhasmaFelis 4y ago
  Authors get paid for library books. (They often cost quite a bit more than the same book sold to an individual.)
  - leereeves 4y ago
    Why would libraries pay more for books when the first sale doctrine allows them to lend any book? Perhaps you're thinking of e-books.
    - kixiQu 4y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_binding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_binding This comment thread gets to be part of today's lucky 10,000. :) (https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/)
      - function_seven 4y ago
        Sure, but the author isn't seeing a dime more because the library decided to pony up for the better book binding. The point is that authors' revenue from books sold to libraries is the same as what they get from a retail sale.
    - ta_408E996 4y ago
      There are “library editions” of many books that have stronger binding to better hold up to many people reading it. These editions cost more.
nix23 4y ago
Copyright protected work can only be lend for one person at the time. >If people worked long and hard on something, they deserve the right to prevent it from being given away for free. So FreeSoftware/OSS people don't work hard? I think Ricard Stallman made a really good presentation why today's copyright is unfair for small authors but really good for the "harry potter".
- tsegers 4y ago
  > So FreeSoftware/OSS people don't work hard? That's not a fair conclusion from the parent comment at all. Software developers _do_ have the right to prevent their work from being given away for free. Them _choosing_ to develop FOSS is them voluntarily waiving that right.
  - xhkkffbf 4y ago
    The GPL is not waiving that right. It's attaching a condition that any improvements must also be distributed too. So that's not free as in beer.
  - nix23 4y ago
    And most of the small authors think that copyright should not be longer then 5 years, the only one's against it are the big publishers, so as a small author you cannot choose if you want at least a bit money. But yeah its not a completely fair comparison.

dcow 4y ago

No they don’t. Period. We’ll be a healthier society once we get past the idea that you can, well, own ideas.

healsdata 4y ago
What alternative model for funding the creation of said "ideas" would you propose? If everything is free as soon as it exists, how do we ensure equitable access to creation?

rjh29 4y ago

That runs counter to the entire concept of a library. Which is what the Internet Archive is.

PhasmaFelis 4y ago
Authors get paid for library books. (They often cost quite a bit more than the same book sold to an individual.) An author/publisher can choose not to sell to a particular library if they really want to.
- adamc 4y ago
  They do, but publishers have been tightening the screws on libraries too.
- jacobolus 4y ago
  Libraries pay the ordinary retail price (or less from a bulk discount). They sometimes buy books with (more expensive) sturdier binding, expecting it to be used more heavily. Authors cannot stop libraries from buying their books and putting them on the shelf. Or are you talking about ebooks?
- jrochkind1 4y ago
  This is not generally true in the USA, where the "first sale doctrine" gives libraries (or anyone else) the legal right to buy an ordinary consumer copy of a physical printed book, and lend it out (for free or rent) as many times as they want, without the permission of the copyright holder and without paying them an additional fee. In the USA, if any library pays more for a "library" price, that's voluntary. They have the complete legal right to buy an ordinary copy from any consumer channel that will sell ot them (new or used re-sold) and lend it out. And this is not a special right of things classed as libraries, it's a right anyone has. Traditionally, when it comes to physical copies, anyway. In other countries, the "first-sale doctrine" does not exist, and this may not be true. I think in Europe libraries do pay "licensing" fees to be able to loan out books, that get redistributed to copyright holders based on use statistics, sort of how music playing licensing does work in the USA too. So argument here about whether libraries really do this or not may just be confusion over the fact that things really do work differently in different countries. I suppose that gives us the opportunity to compare... has the right to loan out legally purchased books without licenses damaged the incentive to write books in the USA compared to Europe? Like even back in pre-ebook days? I suspect not.
  - hadlock 4y ago
    Libraries pay more for "library binding" copies of books, when available
    - jrochkind1 4y ago
      They may choose to, because they are willing to pay more for the longer-lasting binding. Or it may help them remain on good terms with publishers. While I'm technically a librarian, I haven't worked in this area or at an institution where it's relevant for a long time now, so actually don't know personally how common this is. But if libraries choose to pay more for a better binding, that is because of their determination that the value is worth it to them, not because there is any law that says they must to give more compensation to copyright holders. Nor is it proportionate to how many times they lend out the book or anything. In the USA libraries are completely legally allowed to take a copy they bought legally anywhere at all, including a used booksale from someone else, and loan it out as many times as they want, without needing a license or to make any additional payments to original copyright holder. I am so so positive of this (although I am not a lawyer).
healsdata 4y ago
The current legal issue around the Internet Archive's library came to a head because IA decided to remove restrictions on lending. They changed from the "we have one copy, so we lend one copy" model that libraries follow to "we have a one copy, so everyone can have a copy at the same time" for a period of time. Had they not done that, the publishers knew they faced an uphill battle because of the first-sale doctrine. But once Pandora's box was opened, the publishers saw their chance to stamp out the whole thing by arguing "well they did it once, what's to stop them from doing it again?" IA made a well-intentioned but ill-advised decision.

r053bud 4y ago

So libraries should not exist?

PhasmaFelis 4y ago
Authors get paid for library books. (They often cost quite a bit more than the same book sold to an individual.)
- leereeves 4y ago
  Why would libraries pay more for books when the first sale doctrine allows them to lend any book? Perhaps you're thinking of e-books.
  - kixiQu 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_binding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_binding This comment thread gets to be part of today's lucky 10,000. :) (https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/)
    - function_seven 4y ago
      Sure, but the author isn't seeing a dime more because the library decided to pony up for the better book binding. The point is that authors' revenue from books sold to libraries is the same as what they get from a retail sale.
  - ta_408E996 4y ago
    There are “library editions” of many books that have stronger binding to better hold up to many people reading it. These editions cost more.

nix23 4y ago

Copyright protected work can only be lend for one person at the time. >If people worked long and hard on something, they deserve the right to prevent it from being given away for free. So FreeSoftware/OSS people don't work hard? I think Ricard Stallman made a really good presentation why today's copyright is unfair for small authors but really good for the "harry potter".

tsegers 4y ago
> So FreeSoftware/OSS people don't work hard? That's not a fair conclusion from the parent comment at all. Software developers _do_ have the right to prevent their work from being given away for free. Them _choosing_ to develop FOSS is them voluntarily waiving that right.
- xhkkffbf 4y ago
  The GPL is not waiving that right. It's attaching a condition that any improvements must also be distributed too. So that's not free as in beer.
- nix23 4y ago
  And most of the small authors think that copyright should not be longer then 5 years, the only one's against it are the big publishers, so as a small author you cannot choose if you want at least a bit money. But yeah its not a completely fair comparison.