Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Ernie's posts Post Back to profile
Top-level
Jonathan Kamens

@ernie Ah, so now we're moving the goalposts.
You knew when you posted your first post above what IA _actually_ did, but you chose to describe it inaccurately so you could make IA look better and the corporations who sued them look worse than actually justified by the circumstances?
And then when called out on it, you came back with "well ok, it actually wasn't as bad as I said, but lord, it wasn't good."
Yeah, no.
I don't waste my time here with people who pull shit like this.
*plonk*,,

29 June at 0:19 | Wall-to-wall | Open on federate.social
9 comments
DELETED

@jik @ernie
The publishers stand fully within the bounds of the protection of their copyrights.

Fully scanning, storing electronically, and distributing a work protected by someone else's copyright is out of bounds of legality and fairness.

The Internet Archive pirated someone else's property in the name of a purported social cause or closeted authoritarian socialism. They held no entitlement to do so.
That is the context.

29 June at 0:37 | Open on mastodon.social
Ernie Smith

@AndersBaerbock

This is where I stand on this. And all I was honestly trying to say to @jik before he kind of went left. I wasn’t trying to piss him off, just to say the program was to some degree defensible.

writing.exchange/@ernie/112696

29 June at 1:13 | Open on writing.exchange
Ernie Smith

@AndersBaerbock @jik You clearly disagree, but this is my view. The Internet Archive should be able to scan books and lend them. Fair use should extend in this way.

29 June at 1:15 | Open on writing.exchange
DELETED

@ernie @jik
If you think that fair use should extend in some specific way, then you should submit your notion to the test to actual democracy.

If most people, after a healthy discussion, agree with you, your idea will become incorporated as law.

If democracy is nowadays broken, IMHO is better to fix it rather than embracing the law of the jungle like the IA attempted.

29 June at 1:28 | Open on mastodon.social
DELETED

@ernie @jik
Digitalizing a physical copy of a copyrighted book is not defensible.

I explain: When you buy a printed book, you merely buy a copy of the literary work, but you do not buy the work itself.

So, becoming owner of a printed copy of a book does not grant you the right to digitalize it.

29 June at 1:23 | Open on mastodon.social
Ernie Smith

@AndersBaerbock @jik I disagree. That frames the content owner as having fewer rights in a digital realm. Fair use should bend more than that.

Libraries should work exactly the same in the digital era as they do the physical one. It's the belief that they're somehow different feels like a warping of the library’s intent, as well as the intent of fair use

It's possible the case in front of the court may go either way on this point.

29 June at 1:35 | Open on writing.exchange
DELETED

@ernie @jik
«That frames the content owner as having fewer rights in a digital realm.» False: the content (copyright) owner can also sell you a digital copy of the literary work —if actually wanted to.

And exactly like in the physical realm, the copyright owner must explicitly allow you to make more digital copies and distribute those.

Regarding fair use: As I said, actual democracy may serve as the test in a civilized world; not the law of the jungle.

Have a nice weekend.

@ernie @jik
«That frames the content owner as having fewer rights in a digital realm.» False: the content (copyright) owner can also sell you a digital copy of the literary work —if actually wanted to.

And exactly like in the physical realm, the copyright owner must explicitly allow you to make more digital copies and distribute those.

29 June at 1:46 | Open on mastodon.social
Ernie Smith

@AndersBaerbock @jik You totally misread what I said. The content owner is the person who bought the object. I specifically did not say copyright owner.

29 June at 1:49 | Open on writing.exchange
DELETED replied to Ernie

@ernie @jik
Thanks for saying.
Anyway, the rights are the same both in the physical and digital realms:
When a person buys a copy —whether digital or physical— of a literary work, that act does not entitle the person (or organization) to make more copies —whether digital or physical— and distribute them —whether digitally or physically.

Bye! 2nd time, and last.

@ernie @jik
Thanks for saying.
Anyway, the rights are the same both in the physical and digital realms:
When a person buys a copy —whether digital or physical— of a literary work, that act does not entitle the person (or organization) to make more copies —whether digital or physical— and distribute them —whether digitally or physically.

29 June at 1:55 | Open on mastodon.social
Go Up