 As most of you know, our library is being sued by 4 corporate publishers who want to stop the Internet Archive from lending books. The date for oral argument has just been set for March 20. What's at stake? Lia Holland from @team elaborates: https://www.fightforthefuture.org/news/2023-02-23-statement-major-decision-on-libraries-digital-rights-a-step-closer-on-march-20 33 comments
 Yeah! Got money? Buy some legal combat for everybody. No matter the pro bono situation, this isn't coming cheap.  @PirateRoberts @internetarchive @team I'd be inclined to say that the basis #copyright uses to justify its existence is fundamentally flawed and that it has no place existing. Unfortunately I don't have a good transcript handy, but this youtuber's two-video series makes for fairly good general idea: https://www.youtube.com/@Patricia_Taxxon/search?query=The%20Golden%20Calf @lispi314 @internetarchive @team Copyright should not be abolished. Copyright is a good and necessary thing, it just needs to go back to a flat 28 years. If copyright didn’t exist, the creator would have complete control of works, which is why copyright was created. @PirateRoberts Why is it good or necessary? Remuneration of creation or funding of the arts can be done by other ways that do not imply to mind control and limit those exposed to your arts & creations, nor nonsensically apply ownership to ideas. By that I'm referring to everything being derivative art. Because yes, humans get inspired by what they know and remix it, that's a thing. Copyright turns all art into cognitohazards for as long as it is active over a given work. @PirateRoberts As for that complete control? No, the only way to have such complete control is to simply never publish nor share your at. Which well, feel free to do so I guess? I can perfectly well imagine someone writing or painting solely for their own satisfaction with no intent to share the result. That part on remuneration by the way was in the second Golden Calf video. @PirateRoberts @internetarchive @team I'll add one more thing: every copyright has to be signed by a physical person not a company. And that person is the one that makes the clock move. @internetarchive @team we have a technical solution for you, we’re even ready to do the development work for you for free, just give us 15 minutes with your CTO.   @Madagascar_Sky @internetarchive @team @neilhimself Afraid to say I'm about 70% on the side of the publishers on this, and 30% with the internet archive. Nobody's covered themselves in glory, though.  @internetarchive @team  @internetarchive @team if companies could, they would take the memories of thier thing out of your head @internetarchive Why bother holding on to a concept of a past when it is ridiculously unfit in the present? Lending physical books was required for sharing to carry on. Lending ebooks? No thank you. Not to mention that this most certainly comes with #drm in tow.  @polezaivsani @internetarchive @team Free access to written knowledge a concept of a the past? 😅 I looked up to see who was doing this. AFAICT, these are the companies: * Hachette Book Group Inc. (owned by Lagardère Group). * HarperCollins Publishers LLC. (owned by News Corp, aka Murdoch). * John Wiley & Sons Inc. (NYSE:WLY, major holders Vanguard, Blackrock, etc). * Penguin Random House LLC (Germany, privately held by Bertelsmann) @internetarchive @team @internetarchive @team It's true copyright needs reformed, life + 20 approx, not 75 to 100. Also Corporate copyright shouldn't be more than 20. I blame Disney lobbying USA Government. @internetarchive I support you and wish you success in this court case but I'm unwilling to share this article, because Lia from @team resorts to the same divisive rhetoric and name-calling that the authors' and publishers associations do to the IA. This space needs more listening and healing, not more incendiary speech. @internetarchive @team I have to ask, when you started making the books in question available for lending, did you follow the proper library procedures, whatever they happen to be? @cosmictentacle They _did_, following the digital lending policies called Controlled Digital Lending, which is one e-copy can be lent for each physical copy of a book you have. Unfortunately, they painted a target on themselves by being considerably larger than a normal library, and using non-library copies as the source (library copies are sold at a premium to account for lending it out multiple times), and in most cases used copies so they weren't even paying the publisher the 1st time. 🧵1/4 @cosmictentacle Fortunately, grumbling couldn't do much because they were following the law, and their DRM which meant they only worked for 30 days meant complaining was a bit moot. During the pandemic, they started lending more e-copies of books than they had physical copies of. Trouble is it maybe be considered both a breach of the CDL (even though they still were DRMed and could be revoked any time), and massively drew the ire of publishers. Not long after, the lawsuit came. 🧵2/4 @cosmictentacle Trouble is: as a result of their 'recklessness' in the name of 'helping during the pandemic' by removing that lending limits, they have put both themselves and the whole Controlled Digital Lending mechanism into hot water. If they don't win, this could threaten every library that uses CDL to give access to books they own or are no e-copies exist, and will cost them greatly. If the CDL falls they now have to buy and pay for e-copies of everything they already own. 🧵3/4 @cosmictentacle I'm a big supporter of the IA and what they do, but I'm very hopeful that this case is resolved in a slap on the wrist and maybe a fine for breaking the CDL briefly, and not heavier punishment and deep scrutiny of the whole archive, and potential breakdown of the laws that are keeping them alive. I agree entirely with the aims of the Internet Archive and libraries in general. Having read this statement, I do wonder if the focus on the "greedy maw of Big Publishing" might not be counter-productive in a society (seen from the UK anyway) which seems to prioritise money/wealth over just about everything else. I'm only an outsider looking in, but having had retrospective restrictions placed on my ebooks (I still have a number I've bought and can no longer (...) @internetarchive @team read) three times now over the years, this fight is very important. Maybe more emphasis on freedom, public good, restrictive practices, lack of/rights of ownership (contrasting with the law relating to paid-for physical books etc) and less on the monetary implications of book lending might be good. There are also authors and even publishers who insist that their books not have DRM restrictions etc. Perhaps they could also be persuade to support the fight? |
Gregory's Server
@internetarchive @team
I shared the story and made a donation to help with the fight!
Thanks for the work you do!!!