5 ms·

To some degree I think that with the increase in use of digital media there needs to better rights and methods for sharing like one can with physical media. Ho

To some degree I think that with the increase in use of digital media there needs to better rights and methods for sharing like one can with physical media. However, it's not fair use to copy material and redistribute it. Furthermore, the creator should be able to determine the format of the release of their work. If someone wants to alter their work, they must do so in a transformative manner and not pass it off as the creator's work. Someone who makes a book with formatting specific to say a PDF, could be unfairly reviewed or judged by readers who borrowed distributed copies that are formatted to epub, for example.

travoc 2y ago
I read your comment in dark mode. Is that ok with you? I forgot to ask.
- exe34 2y ago
  we need to stop looking at accessibility as something we add occasionally to a product when things are going well and we want to feel nice about ourselves. the best way to do it is through things like this, where the content is available to you and you can choose how to consume it - dark mode, but maybe also reader mode, large fonts, wide screens, text search, etc - these should be considered the basic necessities, and then anything you want to do to make it look nice and feel creative is on top, as an option - even the default option if you really care about marketing over content.
- tptacek 2y ago
  This is a real problem with discussions about copyright, because this is a great example of something that is a mic drop on a message board that will get you tossed out on your ear in a court of law.
  - Taek 2y ago
    Only because of the presentation. I think the same argument could be made in a more professional way. As a society we have to choose where to draw the line between the rights of the author and the rights of the consumer. Every right that we extend to authors is a burden on society, and we have to figure out the point at which returns for the collective are diminishing
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- iwishiknewlisp 2y ago
  Re-read my comment, I said that anyone can do whatever they want with their own copy. But once they start distributing a modified copy is when their is a problem.
_aavaa_ 2y ago
Someone who borrows my poorly stored record collection may get the wrong impression about an artist. Or the book they borrow may be missing packages, making the story not make sense. All of that is irrelevant. I own those copies and am free to share them as a please. That the copy I own is digital versus physical should not change that.
Dylan16807 2y ago
> However, it's not fair use to copy material and redistribute it. You mean permanent copies, right? Then the IA doesn't disagree. They just want to loan out one digital copy while the original is locked up, in an attempt to emulate not making copies as closely as possible in a digital world. > Furthermore, the creator should be able to determine the format of the release of their work. If someone wants to alter their work, they must do so in a transformative manner and not pass it off as the creator's work. > Someone who makes a book with formatting specific to say a PDF, could be unfairly reviewed or judged by readers who borrowed distributed copies that are formatted to epub, for example. I can get behind forced marking in some circumstances, but shifting between digital and physical should fall under first sale doctrine and the author should not have control over it.
- mminer237 2y ago
  The law has no concept of a "temporary copy". How is the Internet Archive supposed to enforce that? Government DRM?
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    The law was written a long time ago and it needs some clarifications and updates. Lots of temporary copies are already considered fair use. Every time you play a disc you make temporary copies, and nobody complains. And if playing a CD can just use copyright and no "government DRM", then so can lending an ebook.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      Clearly no, and we have two opinions now from federal courts explaining why. Maybe they can appeal it to the Supreme Court and get a 3rd, taking this question off the table categorically for the next 30 years.
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        > Clearly no Please don't do this. I'm not talking about what the law is, I'm talking about what it can be. You are not responding to my argument.
dragonwriter 2y ago
> However, it's not fair use to copy material and redistribute it. On the contrary, fair use often involves copying materials and redistributing them.

travoc 2y ago

I read your comment in dark mode. Is that ok with you? I forgot to ask.

exe34 2y ago
we need to stop looking at accessibility as something we add occasionally to a product when things are going well and we want to feel nice about ourselves. the best way to do it is through things like this, where the content is available to you and you can choose how to consume it - dark mode, but maybe also reader mode, large fonts, wide screens, text search, etc - these should be considered the basic necessities, and then anything you want to do to make it look nice and feel creative is on top, as an option - even the default option if you really care about marketing over content.
tptacek 2y ago
This is a real problem with discussions about copyright, because this is a great example of something that is a mic drop on a message board that will get you tossed out on your ear in a court of law.
- Taek 2y ago
  Only because of the presentation. I think the same argument could be made in a more professional way. As a society we have to choose where to draw the line between the rights of the author and the rights of the consumer. Every right that we extend to authors is a burden on society, and we have to figure out the point at which returns for the collective are diminishing
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
iwishiknewlisp 2y ago
Re-read my comment, I said that anyone can do whatever they want with their own copy. But once they start distributing a modified copy is when their is a problem.

_aavaa_ 2y ago

Someone who borrows my poorly stored record collection may get the wrong impression about an artist. Or the book they borrow may be missing packages, making the story not make sense. All of that is irrelevant. I own those copies and am free to share them as a please. That the copy I own is digital versus physical should not change that.

Dylan16807 2y ago

> However, it's not fair use to copy material and redistribute it. You mean permanent copies, right? Then the IA doesn't disagree. They just want to loan out one digital copy while the original is locked up, in an attempt to emulate not making copies as closely as possible in a digital world. > Furthermore, the creator should be able to determine the format of the release of their work. If someone wants to alter their work, they must do so in a transformative manner and not pass it off as the creator's work. > Someone who makes a book with formatting specific to say a PDF, could be unfairly reviewed or judged by readers who borrowed distributed copies that are formatted to epub, for example. I can get behind forced marking in some circumstances, but shifting between digital and physical should fall under first sale doctrine and the author should not have control over it.

mminer237 2y ago
The law has no concept of a "temporary copy". How is the Internet Archive supposed to enforce that? Government DRM?
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  The law was written a long time ago and it needs some clarifications and updates. Lots of temporary copies are already considered fair use. Every time you play a disc you make temporary copies, and nobody complains. And if playing a CD can just use copyright and no "government DRM", then so can lending an ebook.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    Clearly no, and we have two opinions now from federal courts explaining why. Maybe they can appeal it to the Supreme Court and get a 3rd, taking this question off the table categorically for the next 30 years.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      > Clearly no Please don't do this. I'm not talking about what the law is, I'm talking about what it can be. You are not responding to my argument.

dragonwriter 2y ago

> However, it's not fair use to copy material and redistribute it. On the contrary, fair use often involves copying materials and redistributing them.