Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

askf0ransw3rs t1_jdubbgm wrote

They are price gouging libraries out of digital existence, which only means patrons and access will suffer. This is totally by design.

187

[deleted] t1_jdul01b wrote

[removed]

61

books-ModTeam t1_je4na73 wrote

Per Rule 3.6: No distribution or solicitation of pirated books.

We aren't telling you not to discuss piracy (it is an important topic), but we do not allow anyone to share links and info on where to find pirated copies. This rule comes from no personal opinion of the mods' regarding piracy, but because /r/books is an open, community-driven forum and it is important for us to abide the wishes of the publishing industry.

2

fddfgs t1_jdyrikg wrote

This is like the fourth time I've gone from being called a boomer for torrenting only for it to become relevant again.

Style never goes out of fashion, I guess

1

Tony2Punch t1_jdv6abc wrote

It’s more like the Internet Library tried to give out digital copies during Covid Lockdowns, didn’t go through the proper procedures to do that, then had authors who weren’t getting any benefit from unlimited digital rentals on Internet Library, those authors raise a stink then the publishers decide to get litigious.

−11

askf0ransw3rs t1_jdv8nst wrote

Not exactly. IA purchased and digitized 1 book, then put the physical book away while the ebook circulated- ie no “double dipping.” Was it all kosher? No, but no one lost out except the publishers who are trying to squeeze every last penny out consumers- libraries or otherwise…

Charge me what you charge a regular person for an ebook; don’t quadruple the price to force demand (that James Patterson ebook that cost small town library USA $120 also has about 500 on hold for it).

Also, as a legit public librarian I want to point out that I don’t support just pirating- our code of professional ethics require balance between rights holders and the public, see number 4.

18

JadedElk t1_jdvfjvl wrote

I'm on IA'a side, and publishers have been circling, looking for a vulnerability for years. But IA did technically break it's one one-for-one rules during COVID, as an emergency library, so more people could borrow the same books at the same time.

14

ddadopt t1_jdviwd4 wrote

Sorry but the downvoted comment you are responding to has this correct: the lawsuit was precipitated by the Archive deciding copyright law was null and void “because Covid.”

Instead of “controlled digital lending” which is what you describe at the start of your comment, the Archive was offering unlimited copies of everything it had in its collection.

Note: I fully support format shifting and contend that it’s a logical extension of the Betamax case (time shifting necessarily involves format shifting) and I’m absolutely incensed about those assholes at the Archive doing their level best to give the court an excuse to rule in favor of the publishers.

The publishers could not have asked for a better set of facts to litigate if they had tried.

13

qwill60 t1_jdxjf8o wrote

Except that this ruling isn't only about the emergency library it also targets controlled digital lending.

2

ddadopt t1_jdy29u0 wrote

Yes, I fully understand that, which I think is reflected rather clearly in how incensed I am at the morons that invited the suit with their idiocy.

2

smallstuffedhippo t1_jdvg1mo wrote

The Internet Archive is available worldwide.

And yet, they bought one copy of each book in exactly one jurisdiction.

They didn’t bother to buy Canadian, UK, European, Asian, African, etc copies so that the all of the author’s publishers, some of whom might be tiny niche houses like Poisoned Pen or Canongate or Europa Editions who took a chance on an unknown author, also got some income to help them and their staff during the pandemic.

The IA also didn’t bother to limit borrowing to the one jurisdiction where they had bought each book.

The IA ignored the fact that other countries pay authors – not publishers, but straight into the pockets of actual authors – for how often their works are borrowed from libraries through schemes like the UK’s Public Lending Right.

If the IA had won the US court action, they’d have been sued in other courts around the world and they’d have lost repeatedly.

This isn’t publishers bad, IA good.

This is a bunch of tech bros deciding that it’s okay to defraud authors globally out of what could be thousands in income for them.

You’re right that it’s not double dipping. It’s considerably worse than that.

Do I think that the hugest publishing houses act like a monopoly in the US? Yes.

Has anyone yet come up with a way to disrupt that which is fair to authors? No. And they deserve to eat. (As do copy editors and typesetters and everyone else in publishing.)

7

Tony2Punch t1_jdv9s5p wrote

“Was it all kosher? No”

Then that’s all they need to hear?

−6

askf0ransw3rs t1_jdvadm8 wrote

Yeh, let’s do/try nothing and let the publisher digital monopoly destroy reading. Good plan for that well-informed citizenry /s.

9

Tony2Punch t1_jdvgmnp wrote

Yeah so idk why you are arguing with me. I just stated reality. Internet Library did something they weren’t allowed too, functionally stole money from publishers, and now publishers want their money. It honestly doesn’t even sound evil even if it’s obscenely greedy

1

wc10888 t1_jdszj69 wrote

Interesting since Internet Archive has DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) exemptions for other types of things

185

Negative-Net-9455 t1_jducq88 wrote

Can't think of a better way to encourage piracy.

111

spectacularobsessed t1_jdw7um0 wrote

Yep. In two semesters I've bought one single textbook, used the archive for all the rest. Will be terribly devastated if the archive's forced to stop, don't want to pirate but also can't afford 6 text books per semester (at minumum) for the next 6 semesters. Judging from the article though, the case is against what they did during Covid, so maybe they can keep at a limited lending schedule.

3

Halaku OP t1_jdsndam wrote

>U.S. District Court Judge John G. Koeltl said that the Internet Archive was making “derivative” works by turning print books into ebooks and distributing them.

Right call? Wrong call? Thoughts?

52

rkalo t1_jdtj8l6 wrote

Obvious conclusion. It's idealistically nice that books could be free but it's plainly against the law.

44

Flimsy_Demand7237 t1_jdu9w1o wrote

I guess my days as a librarian are numbered.

46

ItsCalledDayTwa t1_jduang7 wrote

I mean, that may be true, but not because of this. Libraries pay for each copy of a book they lend.

40

Daktyl198 t1_jdueuqe wrote

Libraries pay for each copy, and they pay about 30x as much per copy. And each copy can only be lended a certain number of times (40 or 50 times) before it has to be repurchased.

43

Flimsy_Demand7237 t1_jdug9et wrote

Yeah ebook restrictions are often absolutely absurd, which is why I disagree with this ruling on principle. Physical books are not 'licensed' to be artificially withdrawn and repurchased year on year. These virtuous publishers make more profit % than Walmart, Bank of America, Toyota, they all go barely 10% profit. Ebook publishers? -- 35%-40% profits. On average, ebook cost has 37% upmarked just for profit. It's an artificial greed market where none should exist.

Excellent doco on the academic papers and textbook ebook side of this issue: https://vimeo.com/273358286

45

Artanthos t1_jdupl20 wrote

Walmart actually has a very low profit margin, <2%.

Walmart makes its money on volume.

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/WMT/walmart/profit-margins

14

cheeseybacon11 t1_jdv11ye wrote

So they're still correct. Just a weird way to prove their point.

10

Artanthos t1_jdwxzgx wrote

I wasn’t disagreeing so much as reinforcing with more accurate information.

People like to shit on Walmart.

While a lot of the points are technically correct, the whole point is to bring lower prices to the consumer.

Walmart simply cannot correct many of their issues without raising prices, because they already have a very low profit margin. It would quickly flip from making money from volume to losing billions.

3

skttsm t1_jdvfo3q wrote

Digital media often has a 3 year or 30-50 ish licensing. And they pay roughly 3x for ebooks and audiobooks from what I've seen. I haven't seen or heard of anything near 30x before though

5

thepsycholeech t1_jdunawu wrote

Woah really? Why are the library versions so expensive? Is it an option for libraries to purchase retail copies instead?

4

Daktyl198 t1_jdusheg wrote

No, it’s not an option for them to purchase retail copies. They are legally required to purchase special “lending license” variants of books because book publishers lobbied that libraries cost them too much money by just existing.

Afaik, the lending limit only applies to digital copies of books, as physical copies naturally wear out or get lost with time, and thus will require repurchase either way unlike a digital copy. The physical copies are still hellishly expensive.

21

Trashytelly t1_jdw7iyg wrote

Physical library books are unlikely to be loaned as much as 50 times before being withdrawn from the shelves. Both age and wear and tear will cause them to be withdrawn long before that number is reached.

3

Denziloe t1_jdvs1db wrote

You're a librarian and you think library books are free?

5

Flimsy_Demand7237 t1_jdvtgoc wrote

Very odd that you've had to pay to loan books out from your library.

−1

kwalshyall t1_jdvvcw7 wrote

It's certainly cheaper than that bureaucratic crook, The Wallet Inspector, at least.

1

Denziloe t1_jdw4476 wrote

Not really. Many libraries work that way. And the ones that don't, you're paying for through taxes. The books are paid for.

1

Flimsy_Demand7237 t1_jdxituc wrote

And IA paid for these books as well. They usually have a 1 to 1 digital lending system but the court struck that down as well, so they can't digitally lend at all. Again it's sort of disturbing that you're advocating a library function the same as a bookstore. Libraries do not function this way. A non standard patron or patron of a niche library might pay for membership but as you say, most standard libraries are covered by taxes. They are a public good. I would not expect the homeless or poor to have to pay to loan a book -- libraries are one of the few places they can go and not be charged for use of service.

As I've said elsewhere, there will come a time when physical libraries become either outdated or irrelevant. Then we will only be able to lend ebooks, and if this 1 to 1 system is not in place, publishers will make sure libraries cease to exist through unaffordable fees and conditions. They are already holding libraries hostage to their ebook collections through extreme pricing we have to pay for access. Especially so at academic libraries where Elsiever and the rest have libraries over a barrel on pricing and access.

Publishers want us gone. It's that simple.

2

pornplz22526 t1_jdtidvj wrote

Right call. IA was in blatant violation of copyright law. Even as somebody who wants copyright law heavily reformed, what they were doing was a step too far.

24

scutiger- t1_jdv0s08 wrote

Agreed, just like you're allowed to rip a DVD movie to your computer, but doing so does not make it a derivative work and doesn't give you the right to distribute it willy nilly.

By the IA's rationale, printing an ebook would also be derivative and would negate copyright protections.

They were doing nothing wrong until they started "lending" more than one copy of a given book.

10

pornplz22526 t1_jdvh7qt wrote

You can't lend copies, full stop. By law, you may only lend the exact item you purchased. They would have to be mailing physical books to people in order to be following the law.

FSD also doesn't protect PC software.

3

RubyGuy12 t1_je2glrc wrote

The people who try and pretend the IA are entirely blameless in this drive me insane. Yes, they do a lot of incredibly important work in the preservation and spreading of knowledge. That is exactly why it was so fucking stupid of them to put it all at risk with such a massive, obvious, and public violation of copyright law when they pulled their "emergency library" stunt.

2

scutiger- t1_je331kg wrote

Yeah, I think the IA is great, but this seemed like a dumb move. A real library would never have tried it, I don't know why they thought they would get away with it.

1

[deleted] t1_jebjqf2 wrote

[deleted]

1

RubyGuy12 t1_jeborb6 wrote

In this instance it's when an incredibly important and otherwise legitimate institution for the preservation of knowledge and culture decides that COVID means they can just publically become a full-on piracy site for ebooks, freely providing infinite copies of any book they have in their database. A noble idea, sure, but also 100%, unambiguously illegal.

1

___-Enjoyer t1_jdvdn8s wrote

Technically correct (the best kind) but an IP lawyer would have to clarify about legally correct. The E-book definitely isn't a copy because of the change in medium (it's a series of bits on a drive not ink on paper) but there might be more important legal distinctions.

2

sirbruce t1_jdu0t06 wrote

Right call. Buying a physical book doesn't automatically give you an ebook lending license, let alone an infinite number of them.

0

Flimsy_Demand7237 t1_jdua9bf wrote

Would this apply if book is out of print? There's no way to buy the book from the publisher and for the publisher/author to make money.

16

sirbruce t1_jdue471 wrote

The book being OOP may be exactly what the author or publisher wants. The right of copyright includes the right NOT to have your work sold.

−4

Flimsy_Demand7237 t1_jdug64f wrote

Bye bye second hand books then haha!

6

Griffen_07 t1_jdul9ni wrote

No that is right of first sale. If you have a physical object it is yours to with as you please. You have the explicit right to resale it.

The issue is that that right goes away as soon as things go digital as you can’t prove who has the one true paid for copy.

7

pornplz22526 t1_jdvg60h wrote

Only if you're trying to sell a photo copy of the book...

3

sirbruce t1_jdykqg1 wrote

The right of first sale has nothing to do with the right not to print more copies.

1

lingenfr t1_jdwnmuc wrote

You would think that people in a books sub would have read at least one book and hence have a brain. Why do idiots here keep downvoting factually correct answers that at not antagonistic?

3

sirbruce t1_jdykyrk wrote

I'm more shocked that so many professed book-lovers are anti-author. Yes, I'm sure if you're a Cory Doctorow acolyte you hate copyright, but pretty much everyone else would find the majority of the authors they enjoy are lined up against the IA on this issue.

2

princetonwu t1_je3hjhm wrote

they're free-book lovers. they care about their ability to leech but not at all about the authors they read.

1

blackcatsareawesome t1_jdudy5v wrote

Govment gon have to pry my late victorian etiquette manual's from my cold dead hands

50

TheRainyDaze t1_jdueu44 wrote

This reminds me of all those fan-game projects that sit in a comfortable legal grey area until someone decides to put everything up on Steam and move things from "maybe legal" to "definitely not legal."

When IA were still tying their digital lending to physical copies of individual books, they might have had a slim chance in court. Once they allowed for unlimited lending - regardless of their motivation for it - this chance evaporated.

From an ethical perspective... It's messy. Arguably, archiving out-of-print books from the 60s is probably a good thing. However, distributing unlimited digital copies of an active author's book from the 2010s is somewhat less defensible. If we have a situation somewhere in the middle, who the hell knows?

42

hawkxp71 t1_jdv61ai wrote

There wouldn't have been a lawsuit if they keep to the controlled lending flow.

7

[deleted] t1_jdu402f wrote

[removed]

36

[deleted] t1_jdumejc wrote

[removed]

15

[deleted] t1_jdup8zu wrote

[removed]

3

DruidicCupcakes t1_jduqclc wrote

Just a reminder that your average author is not wealthy, and if you enjoy a book series, pirating it can actually hurt an author’s chance at getting more work published if sales aren’t high enough.

Further if you take a book out from a library, the author still gets paid, and while ebook licenses obviously need to be thrown out the window like the garbage they are, IA’s model isn’t the answer either.

34

Consoledreader t1_jdutmoe wrote

Exactly. As a librarian I believe in more access to knowledge, information, and books, but at the same time I have some published authors as friends and when this story about the potential lawsuit first broke, they went to check if their works were available through IA, found out it was, and they were livid about e-copies of their books being available to borrow for free by unlimited amounts of people.

22

Negative-Net-9455 t1_jdvhq4v wrote

You should tell them to get Neil Gaiman to explain it to them.

−6

ngpropman t1_jdw73wo wrote

Step one be incredibly successful and wealthy like Neil Gaiman.

6

Negative-Net-9455 t1_jdw7h1n wrote

I'd say step one is to be a good writer, like Neil Gaiman.

−7

ngpropman t1_jdw7rbc wrote

Tons of good writers don't reach the level of success he has and he is my favorite author.

7

Negative-Net-9455 t1_jdw9wmr wrote

Yup, and tons of not very good writers become successful and wealthy. The point being, whilst piracy might affect direct sales of a particular book, there's good evidence to suggest it leads to people going and buying more books by that author. This in turn leads me to believe that piracy might piss off the publishing industry when they heavily market a particular book(s) but there's probably a net financial gain for individual authors across all their work.

0

albertnormandy t1_jdv2x32 wrote

Reddit hivemind says piracy isn’t stealing and that authors are asking for it by making ebooks.

13

Sad_Objective_9394 t1_jdvhgwl wrote

So much this.

How would you like to have your work stolen and not get paid for it?

None of us would want to work for free, why do we expect authors to?

7

Arctic__Fox t1_jdv3ytb wrote

Huh. I always was under the impression that royalties weren’t earned on library lending. Interesting to learn about this.

5

hawkxp71 t1_jdv5njz wrote

They don't ON the lend. They do ON the single library purchase.

8

Arctic__Fox t1_jdv7pip wrote

I’m referring to the UK Public Lending Rights Scheme of 1979 which supposedly does lead to royalties per loan.

4

hawkxp71 t1_jdv9aey wrote

OK. I was talking in the US, for printed books. Since this article was based on a us lawsuit

4

smallstuffedhippo t1_jdvh4e6 wrote

As I’ve commented up-thread to someone else, the IA made books available worldwide, so they defrauded authors globally, as the UK isn’t the only country to pay authors per loan.

3

VirusTimes t1_jdvhc3t wrote

I’m sure this still holds true, but finding books online has certainly resulted in me buying more books. If I enjoy a book I’m reading I almost always buy a hardback copy. I don’t think I would have bought many (realistically almost all of them) without having read them partially before. It feels like the digital equivalent of reading part of a book in the bookstore.

1

Suprematic_Cube t1_jdzg18h wrote

It's alright. Not only an average author from my personal library isn't wealthy, poor fella is as dead as a doornail too!

1

CptNonsense t1_jdurixk wrote

>Just a reminder that your average author is not wealthy, and if you enjoy a book series, pirating it can actually hurt an author’s chance at getting more work published if sales aren’t high enough.

Attacking the ability to resell products you own is some take.

−15

DruidicCupcakes t1_jduvaai wrote

That’s definitely not what I was saying, nor is that what IA is doing.

16

CptNonsense t1_jduxsy1 wrote

It's not what the IA is doing or what you meant, but is 100% what you said and another major bugbear of the publishing industry

−18

DruidicCupcakes t1_jdv1jde wrote

Username checks out.

6

CptNonsense t1_jdv2ifk wrote

Why? Because I pointed out your entire argument applies to the resell market? Ok, penguin & Schuster.

−12

hawkxp71 t1_jdv5utz wrote

Only if you exclude their second paragraph.

They acknowledge the author only gets paid once, but that is better than zero.

The resale market is not the same as the piracy market.

9

CptNonsense t1_jdvpluc wrote

>Only if you exclude their second paragraph.

No, including the second paragraph. The author never makes any money from resells or the used book market.

>They acknowledge the author only gets paid once, but that is better than zero.

But not as good as "every sale", which is what publishers want.

>The resale market is not the same as the piracy market.

According to other people crying about the money authors aren't making (ie, publishers), it totally is

−1

DruidicCupcakes t1_jdy7gzt wrote

I’m just a bit confused where you thought I was talking about the resale market at all.

0

askf0ransw3rs t1_jdub6t7 wrote

Sure my ebook budget will keep paying $120/shitty James Patterson title on OD Advantage (compared to the retail of $30/hardback or, really a wholesale rate of like, $19 or we). It’s a totally sustainable /s.

27

Daktyl198 t1_jduf2eq wrote

IA are definitely in the wrong here, but I’m afraid that the publishers will use this win to push for even more restrictions on normal libraries. As it stands, a normal library has to pay exorbitant amounts of money per copy of an ebook they buy, and the ebook can only be lent a certain number of times before it has to be repurchased.

Combined with libraries getting less and less funding every year, this is going to turn into a death knell for libraries.

25

IntrepidReader t1_jdvype6 wrote

We make a product that gets easily damaged, so we will charge libraries an obscene amount of money for a format that doesn't.

−1

[deleted] t1_jebkow7 wrote

[deleted]

1

IntrepidReader t1_jebp4ye wrote

Yes, Oh master of the obvious! But why do they have to pay more for an electronic book than a physical book?

1

Keksis_theBetrayed t1_jdt154w wrote

So long, Internet Archive.

( ̄ー ̄)ゞ

22

lydiardbell t1_jdti8pg wrote

The fine is incredible, but reportedly something IA can weather.

19

battraman t1_jdvf9n1 wrote

Probably do another few fundraisers, I'm sure.

2

princetonwu t1_je3hx4y wrote

if the Court grants an injunction to take down all the borrowing, IA has to shut it down regardless of their financial situation

1

lydiardbell t1_je4tob3 wrote

Shutting down this particular lending program doesn't mean the end of everything else the Internet Archive does, including the Wayback Machine and the provision of public-domain and CC works. So all the people acting like the Internet Archive is about to be dismantled and their servers thrown into the ocean are overreacting a little.

1

AUWarEagle82 t1_jdv7dqx wrote

I think the law on copyrighted materials is pretty clear and I am not surprised the court ruled to protect intellectual property in this manner. Google claimed the right to take such property at will several years ago and I think they faced the same outcome.

I can't take property from someone, duplicate it, and give it to anyone who wants it. It doesn't matter if my motives and intentions are "good." I have still taken something that isn't mine and harmed the rightful owner.

6

burningmanonacid t1_jduycju wrote

Greedy companies promote piracy better than anyone else possibly could.

5

leon_gonfishun t1_jdv6sme wrote

This also has nothing to do with the Authors of the books....this has everything to do with the publishers' profits. Authors get next to nothing for their efforts...

2

bookboyfriends t1_jdwj43e wrote

They were in the wrong. There definitely needs to be a balance between making all books accessible and making sure the authors get paid for their work. Piracy is not the answer.

Libraries pay a higher amount for limited use. Ebooks are paid per use also. The same way Blockbuster would pay a huge amount to buy movies to rent out. I remember it being $200-$500 per DVD. I’m sure it’s the same with movie theaters but at a higher cost. Entertainment costs money and man hours to create.

2

[deleted] t1_jdsz6le wrote

[deleted]

1

Halaku OP t1_jdszb40 wrote

You think conservatives are going to rule against corporate interests here?

22

InterestingLong9133 t1_jdu01db wrote

libs certainly aren't. Look at this thread for instance.

5

battraman t1_jdvffi4 wrote

It's sad that when our elected officials can come together it's only to protect corporations or to support wars.

2

lingenfr t1_jdvz3op wrote

IANAL. If IA had only allowed a single copy of the book to be loaned out at one time would they have won their case? From my layman read, I think so.

1

toshirodragon t1_jdxaxpb wrote

That was a misleading headline.... *stop clickbait*

1

Halaku OP t1_jdxjgwn wrote

What was misleading about the headline Time magazine used?

1

_demello t1_jdvbrgx wrote

Pops open the bottle of rum

−2

sumofabatch t1_jdu5d5t wrote

This is good for authors. Readers can still get books from libraries or IA will have to adjust its model to comply with lending laws. They’ll be fine, and so will the consuming public.

−8

Pipe-International t1_jdsqjae wrote

Sounds like a no brainer to me. Just because you’re a registered not for profit org doesn’t mean you can just start pirating

−38

blizzard36 t1_jdt3utz wrote

The publishers could have also recognized the effort for what it was, a temporary program to help get through a crisis, and gotten on board for some goodwill.

−7

Pipe-International t1_jdt4wkt wrote

Sure, but not doing in goodwill isn’t against the law (were they even asked?). This isn’t a case of what is morally right but what is objectively against the law, which copying somebody’s book and sharing it en masse without paying for the extra copies in circulation is. No different from “sharing” music & movies online.

10

poboy975 t1_jdta6xu wrote

Except i can copy a paper book and share it without issues. It's not much different

−7

Iz-kan-reddit t1_jdtnq7e wrote

>Except i can copy a paper book and share it without issues. It's not much different

No, you can't.

19

Pipe-International t1_jdtb62l wrote

No it isn’t any different (still illegal), but I don’t think the biggest publishers in the country are concerned about you as a singular person, maybe if you started a global online archive that was sharing untold amount of titles to untold amounts of people for free without permission, then maybe they’d take notice.

17

blizzard36 t1_jdtg748 wrote

Actually, a copy for personal use is quite legal. Publishers HATE it, and have been doing their best to overturn it for a long time. (Video game publishers especially.) The only thing clearly established as illegal after this ruling is that IA couldn't lend more copies than they had, which honestly was pretty clear before and I think the IA was banking on consideration for the circumstances.

The publishers are using this as an avenue to attack being able to make a copy in a new format (which is the thing that has always angered video game publishers especially). They would like to force people to buy new copies of a product every time there is a new popular format, where right now people do it because generally it's pretty cheap and definitely more convenient than making your own copy. There are books and games I have 5 legal copies of simply because it's way easier to spend a couple bucks to get them on a new service than going through the steps to convert my existing copies.

Everyone should be concerned about the publishers stretching the ruling to that point, because it won't take long for them to introduce new formats to push repeat sales.

9

Iz-kan-reddit t1_jdtnssd wrote

>Actually, a copy for personal use is quite legal.

Personal use isn't sharing with others.

15

Pipe-International t1_jdtnq6h wrote

‘Personal use’ not to all and sundry. And publishers hate it because it’s pirating a product THEY paid for. When was the last time YOU put up the 10s of thousands or even millions of dollars it costs to publish books??? I don’t know much about computers, what I do know is, if you’re sharing my book, cool, but don’t take advantage of me. Pay me for my work for those extra copies. Or in this case, stop sharing my shit for free just because there are a lack of regulations online as of yet.

Edit: and if it’s for a good cause like the library shutdowns over covid (even though most libraries are online anyway), like at least ask first, damn. People just think they are entitled to everyone else’s work. Like I didn’t write a book for free, the publisher didn’t produce & market it for free, the original copy wasn’t free, so why should a global archive that’s not even a real library be able to duplicate it into a different format and share it for free?

5

CptNonsense t1_jdurc1j wrote

>When was the last time YOU put up the 10s of thousands or even millions of dollars it costs to publish books???

Tens of thousands and millions are vastly different sums of money. And we are talking about ebooks so the price of publishing is vastly cheaper, especially if the cheap out on ebook features for digital works that don't already include them by default, which I can only imagine they do.

>I don’t know much about computers, what I do know is, if you’re sharing my book, cool, but don’t take advantage of me. Pay me for my work for those extra copies

Do.. Do you think the publishers created those books?

>why should a global archive that’s not even a real library

A library is a concept, not a building.

−3

Pipe-International t1_jdwx308 wrote

Book budgets differ depending on their projected return & editor. 10k or a million, point is you’re not paying for that book.

I know publishers don’t create books but they pay the authors, editors, artists, production, marketing and distribution. If an online global archive can just make copies and give them away that affects the whole industry right down to the author.

It doesn’t matter if it’s an ebook (which these copies weren’t), at the end of the day they were giving out free copies of peoples work.

The IA is neither a physical building or an online library. Libraries share copies they have purchased or were given or can use freely (public domain) , they don’t make extra copies from an original and share them.

0

sirbruce t1_jdu1446 wrote

Actually, you can't, except in very limited circumstances (teaching, accessibility, etc.). Photocopying a paper book and setting up a library distributing those photocopies would be HIGHLY illegal.

9

sirbruce t1_jdu0yr0 wrote

It wasn't a temporary program. The UNLIMITED LENDING was a temporary program, but the IA still asserted the right to make a digital ebook from a physical copy and lend it "one at a time", which it turns out they didn't have the right to do.

1