undefined | Better HN

0 pointspavon3y ago0 comments

This wasn't about preserving archives, or distributing old works that should have been in the public domain by now, or even "lending" out digital copies backed by physical copies they owned. This was about distributing unlimited digital copies of current works (some published just the year before). Legally and morally I cannot see this as any different or better than blatant copyright piracy.

The Internet Archive does a lot of good things, most clearly legal, others gray areas that I think should be legal. This stunt was different.

0 comments

gojomo3y ago

Not truly "unlimited digital copies" – just extra time-limited checkouts, as a temporary expansion of the prior 1:1 lending, and only while most of the country's libraries were closed. Those limits & circumstances are relevant to the motivation for the act, and the available legal defenses.

ipaddr3y ago

They are lending with limitations like a library.

If the nation was founded today people would never build a single library and they would be deeded evil.

Requiring libraries to buy books is an evil practice. As a function of copyright you should have to donate a book for every 10 numbers sold. Libraries create readers who are necessary for writers/publishers.

stubish3y ago

If they want to change the laws, they could be agitating for a system such as Australia where authors get paid when their books are checked out from libraries. For many Australian authors, it is where the majority of their writing income comes from. Note that it is authors and not publishers receiving this money from the Australian Government. It wouldn't even cost that much, given how little people actually read on average.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse