Gregory's Server@lio @internetarchive Libraries buy books.
If an author gives consent, great; if the author isn't asked for consent, it is theft.
|
19 comments
 @lio @CStamp @internetarchive Generally libraries (at last in parts of Canada) pay a bit extra for books so the author can get at least a bit of compensation to make up for fewer sales of the books. Authors spend months or years working a book -- they need to get compensation for at least some of that time. Royalties don't bring in much for most authors, so when digital copies are stolen, it really hurts the creators/authors. @CStamp @lio @internetarchive You must have missed how the IA library works. Quoting the blog post: > We purchase and acquire books—yes, physical, paper books—and make them available for one person at a time to check out and read online.  @rhoot @CStamp @lio @internetarchive The problem is, IA "Library" broke this role intentionally, which caused the lawsuit.  @hittitezombie @rhoot @lio @internetarchive They need to actually have an agreement with the copyright owners. "The original lawsuit was filed by the publishers in June 2020 and argued that the Internet Archive had digitized “millions of print books and [distributed] the resulting bootleg ebooks free of charge from its site, without the consent of the publishers and their authors or the payment of any license fee.”" @CStamp @rhoot @lio @internetarchive Hachette sued IA when IA started distributing scanned content in an unlimited way, essentially providing online piracy, under the name "National Emergency Library". They were not sued or threathened before this point. @CStamp @rhoot @lio @internetarchive Finally this "500k books banned" malarkey is an outcome of an agreed negotiation. If IA didn't agree on this, they could continue litigation. @CStamp @lio @internetarchive That is *not* a difference, though? @CStamp @mnalis @lio @internetarchive You sound like a tech bro justifying sucking in work of others for AI. Authors depend on sales of their books. If some random person decides to buy one book, scan it, then make it avail be for many others, that is theft, however you want to do mental gymnastics to justify it. @CStamp @lio @internetarchive You keep using that word "theft". I don't think it means what you think it means. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft If you think something is copyright infringement, then please say that instead (and if possible provide references why you think so). For example, in my little part of the world (#Croatia in #EU), the right of public libraries is enshrined in #Copyright law and does not require any consent of the copyright holders (much less authors). 1/n @mnalis @lio @internetarchive It is stealing someone's livelihood to take a book, scan it, then make it available to masses of people. @CStamp @lio @internetarchive Any yes, we are taxed for that privilege, and those taxes are supposedly being used to support the said artists. I don't know the situation in Internet Archives jurisdiction, but would like to learn -- without being called names. (and if possible, by someone knowledgeable providing links to back up their claims. If you're interested in my references for #Croatia it's at https://www.zakon.hr/z/106/Zakon-o-autorskom-pravu-i-srodnim-pravima članak 34.) 2/2 @CStamp @CStamp @lio @internetarchive Every book in library circulation was bought, not stolen. @CStamp @lio @internetarchive |
@CStamp @internetarchive My local public libraries tend to accept book donations. I'm not sure if they generally ask authors or publishers. I was generally under the impression that libraries just bought books the same way as everyone else did.
That said, I've just learned that in Canada, we pay for lending rights on an annual basis (https://publiclendingright.ca/) though this appears to be done a country-wide level rather than the local-level.
I'm ignorant on the subject, that's my bad.