3 ms·
Yes, the very moment they did this I was like "Why are you risking the Internet Archive with doing something this stupid?" Their argument was there are enough
by chx 2y ago
Yes, the very moment they did this I was like "Why are you risking the Internet Archive with doing something this stupid?"
Their argument was there are enough physical copies in shuttered libraries to cover any lending and it's not impossible they could've gotten the publishers on board if they went public with the plan first urging for swift agreement instead of going for "it's easier to ask for forgiveness than to get permission".
- hosh 2y agoIf the goal was to relieve the general public from being stuck inside, they did not have to go for opening everything up. There are a number of university presses listed in the lawsuit, but I doubt most people would want to slog through textbooks. They could have also added code to help people find the books they are looking for in their _local_ libraries if they reached the lending limit. That would bring more attention to the local library and what they do for their community. They could have asked the public to donate books. There may be logistics problem with sending the books over, but it can be something that raised awareness and involved the public more with what their mission. There was lots of ways to do this. Disabling the code to ignore lending limits was low effort … and frankly, not well considered.