3 ms·
I still cannot imagine how IA thought that giving unrestricted access to copyrighted books was a good idea. It seemed inevitable that someone would sue them ove
by tombert 2y ago
I still cannot imagine how IA thought that giving unrestricted access to copyrighted books was a good idea. It seemed inevitable that someone would sue them over it.
Honestly, I think that IA's ambivalence towards the use of their website for outright piracy might lead to their collapse, and that's a shame. The Archive can be a really wonderful tool, though I'm not sure that its current management really knows what they're doing.
- codedokode 2y agoIA was trying to act like a library: they bought physical books and lent digital scans of them, ensuring that only one user can read one book at a time. So IA's position is that you can treat digital books like physical books, i.e. re-sell them or lend. The only difference is that they don't require you to come to library in person. Publishers position is that digital books are different from physical; you have no right to re-sell or lend it without publisher's permission. This is what this case is about.
- tredre3 2y agoNobody complained when IA was lending to one user at a time. The lawsuits started when they removed that restriction during covid.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- zinekeller 2y agoTechincally the publisheres were already complaining before but they knew that the stakes were really unclear (there is a possibility that they lose and set a precedent against their wishes), but IA realy opened a gaping hole with the emergency lending program.