Gregory's ServerWe’re going to court TOMORROW to defend the digital rights of all libraries! Library Futures will be hosting a live blog during oral argument and a live discussion afterwards. Here's how to participate: http://blog.archive.org/2023/03/17/heres-how-to-participate-in-mondays-oral-arguments/
 23 comments
@gavinisdie @internetarchive They're thinking short-term profits for their shareholders. It's *always* the bottom line. Consequences be damned. @internetarchive Stop infringing the copyright rights of everyone else. When publishers and authors place a notice in a book stating «No part of this book may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording, or otherwise, without written permission of the publisher/author», they mean it. Physical lending is allowed, making your piracy website is not. @AndersBaerbock @internetarchive I guess by that logic I can't lend a book to my friends, since I'm transmitting a book without the publisher's permission. @socks @internetarchive Re-read the copyright notice, the verb «transmit» is used in the sense 2a of Merriam-Webster's dictionary: to cause (something, such as light or force) to pass or be conveyed through space or a medium. @AndersBaerbock @internetarchive Do I not move a book through space when I hand it to a friend? @socks @internetarchive It is not telepathy)) Anyway, you may benefit from distinguishing the concept of «physical book» which refers to the physical item, and the generic concept of «book» which refers to a literary work which can exist in a variety of mediums (e.g. physically printed, electronic, audio, etc.). @AndersBaerbock @internetarchive anyways, say I go donate some books to my library, they add those books to their collection and start circulating them. They didn't get permission to give those books out or store them from the publisher, hell, they didn't even pay for them. It's still not piracy. @socks @internetarchive In contrast, storing and lending the printed item is not forbidden and therefore the library does not need to ask for permission. @AndersBaerbock @internetarchive If that's considered piracy under the law, then the law should be changed. There is no functional difference whether one loans a book digitally or physically. @socks @internetarchive For publishers, there's actually an important difference: When libraries lend physical books, those items get worn out and eventually need replacement. Besides the hassle for the user who may prefer to buy his/her own copy instead of making recurrent trips to borrow one. @AndersBaerbock @internetarchive Digital books, and by extension anything digital, becomes obsolete and unreadable if not either replaced or maintained. A good example of this is the Domesday Book. The physical version from almost 1000 years ago is still readable, but an electronic version from the 80s is almost impossible to look through now because no modern computers can read it and no one bothered to maintain it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Domesday_Project @socks @internetarchive But that's a talk for another thread. Have a great Sunday. @AndersBaerbock @socks @internetarchive Uhh: https://blog.archive.org/2022/11/15/digital-books-wear-out-faster-than-physical-books/ Not to mention maintaining the storage medium and server hosting the said books.  @183231bcb @internetarchive Ah. :D If people in the USA could once again please bear in mind that there are over 200 other countries in the world...  |
@internetarchive I really don't understand why companies seem to want to make their things lost media