3 ms·

IMHO the Internet Archive was always going to get sued because they were treating ebooks like physical books and that's contrary to the copyright maximalism tha

IMHO the Internet Archive was always going to get sued because they were treating ebooks like physical books and that's contrary to the copyright maximalism that is law around ebooks. The COVID change didn't really make a difference, they publishers were never going to allow some random people on the internet undo all of the work they put into adding restrictions on digital media. They're never ever going to allow something like the doctrine of first sale to happen again. That's why you can't have an regular library with ebooks. The publishers will not settle for anything less than charging libraries per-read and requiring negotiation for every title offered. The old library model doesn't maximize shareholder value for the publisher. Also to blame is our elected representatives who could legislate a better system for the people, but are too beholden to corporate interests to ever do so.

TMWNN 2y ago
>IMHO the Internet Archive was always going to get sued because they were treating ebooks like physical books and that's contrary to the copyright maximalism that is law around ebooks. No, IA was not sued before the "emergency library" because OpenLibrary treated physical books like physical books. OpenLibrary had been around for years before 2020.[0] >They're never ever going to allow something like the doctrine of first sale to happen again. Ah yes, the oft-touted warning that "they" (meaning publishers) hate the first sale doctrine and somehow will magically abolish it.[1] The principle that one you own something tangible, you can do whatever you want with it (sell it, lend it, gift it, destroy it) is a longstanding one, with books being only one application. Lending libraries predate the concept of a free public library and, yet, publishers somehow did not go around to every paid library and mechanics' institute demanding a cut of membership fees. >That's why you can't have an regular library with ebooks. I said "tangible" above for a reason. I don't have a good answer for how and whether to treat ebooks differently, but am not convinced that the only right and proper one is to treat them exactly the same way as physical books. >The publishers will not settle for anything less than charging libraries per-read and requiring negotiation for every title offered. But this has not been the case in practice. Amazon and other retailers sell ebooks with permanent licenses.[2] Libraries use both CloudLibrary's per-borrow model and Overdrive as providers; while I prefer the latter as a Kindle e-paper reader, there is an argument to be made for either approach from a logistical perspective. In my experience Overdrive has the largest market share, so libraries seem to prefer its approach.[3] [0] I'm quite certain that my IA/OL account is older than yours. [1] As amazing as it may seem, publishing companies' employees also grew up borrowing books at the library. [2] Yes, I know about the 1984 example [3] And before you say "Overdrive books shouldn't expire after 52 borrows!", that seems like a reasonable compromise given that ebooks don't fall apart after repeated use the way pretty much any physical book would after that many borrows. Again, paid-for ebooks from Amazon and elsewhere don't expire.

TMWNN 2y ago

>IMHO the Internet Archive was always going to get sued because they were treating ebooks like physical books and that's contrary to the copyright maximalism that is law around ebooks. No, IA was not sued before the "emergency library" because OpenLibrary treated physical books like physical books. OpenLibrary had been around for years before 2020.[0] >They're never ever going to allow something like the doctrine of first sale to happen again. Ah yes, the oft-touted warning that "they" (meaning publishers) hate the first sale doctrine and somehow will magically abolish it.[1] The principle that one you own something tangible, you can do whatever you want with it (sell it, lend it, gift it, destroy it) is a longstanding one, with books being only one application. Lending libraries predate the concept of a free public library and, yet, publishers somehow did not go around to every paid library and mechanics' institute demanding a cut of membership fees. >That's why you can't have an regular library with ebooks. I said "tangible" above for a reason. I don't have a good answer for how and whether to treat ebooks differently, but am not convinced that the only right and proper one is to treat them exactly the same way as physical books. >The publishers will not settle for anything less than charging libraries per-read and requiring negotiation for every title offered. But this has not been the case in practice. Amazon and other retailers sell ebooks with permanent licenses.[2] Libraries use both CloudLibrary's per-borrow model and Overdrive as providers; while I prefer the latter as a Kindle e-paper reader, there is an argument to be made for either approach from a logistical perspective. In my experience Overdrive has the largest market share, so libraries seem to prefer its approach.[3] [0] I'm quite certain that my IA/OL account is older than yours. [1] As amazing as it may seem, publishing companies' employees also grew up borrowing books at the library. [2] Yes, I know about the 1984 example [3] And before you say "Overdrive books shouldn't expire after 52 borrows!", that seems like a reasonable compromise given that ebooks don't fall apart after repeated use the way pretty much any physical book would after that many borrows. Again, paid-for ebooks from Amazon and elsewhere don't expire.