3 ms·

I believe the issue was that they weren't doing controlled digital lending. They allowed an unlimited number of people to check out an individual book digitally

I believe the issue was that they weren't doing controlled digital lending. They allowed an unlimited number of people to check out an individual book digitally & then took donations for doing so. The original envision, where a book can be checked out digitally (and then is reserved until "returned", and mare available again), is way more defensible.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> They allowed an unlimited number of people to check out an individual book digitally You're referring to the emergency library, which only operated during COVID. The claim in that case is that it should be allowed because it's temporary and can only operate during an emergent crisis, thereby limiting the impact on the market for the works. > & then took donations for doing so Why should that be relevant unless a donation is required to get a copy? It seems like a bad faith argument to try to ensure that no one offering a free service to the public can solicit donations to continue operating it. > The original envision, where a book can be checked out digitally (and then is reserved until "returned", and mare available again), is way more defensible. Isn't the case about both?
- joshspankit 2y ago
  > The claim in that case is that it should be allowed because it's temporary and can only operate during an emergent crisis, thereby limiting the impact on the market for the works. While personally I think that this is a powerful goal, how would that work in practice? Who determines what an emergency is? Once an emergency is declared, does everyone get the legal ability to seed torrents of copyright works? Or stream them directly to the public? If the copyright holders get upset about that then they will be motivated to downplay emergencies which puts them in opposition to the common good. What safeguards would need to be in place?
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    Who determines what is an emergency is the judge. If you guess wrong you lose, but some cases are clearer than others. If a global pandemic that shuts down the economy isn't an emergency then what is? > If the copyright holders get upset about that then they will be motivated to downplay emergencies which puts them in opposition to the common good. The entire premise is that it's temporary and therefore not likely to negatively impact them. But it's also obvious that media companies have a preexisting perverse incentive to over-hype any form of danger, so a countervailing force in the other direction would be a welcome balancing mechanism.
gooob 2y ago
what did they do with the donation money? if they did something charitable with any extra profit i think it should be ok, because then all there is is good-intentioned activity.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

> They allowed an unlimited number of people to check out an individual book digitally You're referring to the emergency library, which only operated during COVID. The claim in that case is that it should be allowed because it's temporary and can only operate during an emergent crisis, thereby limiting the impact on the market for the works. > & then took donations for doing so Why should that be relevant unless a donation is required to get a copy? It seems like a bad faith argument to try to ensure that no one offering a free service to the public can solicit donations to continue operating it. > The original envision, where a book can be checked out digitally (and then is reserved until "returned", and mare available again), is way more defensible. Isn't the case about both?

joshspankit 2y ago
> The claim in that case is that it should be allowed because it's temporary and can only operate during an emergent crisis, thereby limiting the impact on the market for the works. While personally I think that this is a powerful goal, how would that work in practice? Who determines what an emergency is? Once an emergency is declared, does everyone get the legal ability to seed torrents of copyright works? Or stream them directly to the public? If the copyright holders get upset about that then they will be motivated to downplay emergencies which puts them in opposition to the common good. What safeguards would need to be in place?
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  Who determines what is an emergency is the judge. If you guess wrong you lose, but some cases are clearer than others. If a global pandemic that shuts down the economy isn't an emergency then what is? > If the copyright holders get upset about that then they will be motivated to downplay emergencies which puts them in opposition to the common good. The entire premise is that it's temporary and therefore not likely to negatively impact them. But it's also obvious that media companies have a preexisting perverse incentive to over-hype any form of danger, so a countervailing force in the other direction would be a welcome balancing mechanism.

gooob 2y ago

what did they do with the donation money? if they did something charitable with any extra profit i think it should be ok, because then all there is is good-intentioned activity.