4 ms·
their lending scheme is timed by hour with the option to renew with some restraints, it is not lending to thousands at once
by ladidahh 2y ago
their lending scheme is timed by hour with the option to renew with some restraints, it is not lending to thousands at once
- TylerE 2y agoThen why did they just get their ass royally handed to them in court?
- wrs 2y agoBecause they didn’t pay publishers for separate “ebook” licenses.
- Sakos 2y agoBecause the justice and political systems, particularly in regards to copyright, are deeply corrupt.
- lukasb 2y agoBecause publishers are assholes.
- zx8080 2y agoAre all "rich monopolists" the same?
- jachee 2y agoBecause billion-dollar capitalist rent-seeking bullies got their panties in a wad and threatened to bankrupt them with legal fees that the bullies wouldn’t even feel if they lost. And the archive is just a non-profit that were offering a not-for-profit service for the betterment of society, with literally zero actual negative consequences.
- greyface- 2y agoTrying to normalize a DRM system is not advancing the betterment of society. If IA wanted to be pro-social scofflaws, they should have published DRM-free epubs/PDFs/etc for download, copyright law be damned. If they wanted to be law-abiding, they should have declined to offer this service, and informed users of the existence of shadow libraries.
- jrmg 2y agoSerious answer: it was judged that the act of scanning and delivering the book was ‘copying’ it - which copyright laws say they need permission to do. The whole ‘we only let one person at a time read it’ thing was deemed to be irrelevant. Note that I’m not commenting on whether a reasonable person would also interpret copyright law this way, or on whether the laws are fair, just what the judgment was.