• FaceDeer@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 month ago

    doesn’t change that IA is storing files, ebooks to be specific,

    Emphasis added. Storing files is not the problem. Nobody cared when they were just scanning and storing them. The problem arose when they started giving out copies. And worse, giving out copies without restriction - libaries “lend” ebooks by using DRM systems to try to ensure that only a specific number of copies are out “in circulation” at any given time, and so the big publishers have turned a blind eye to that.

    Internet Archive basically turned themselves into an ebook Pirate Bay, giving out as many copies as were asked for with no limits.

    Again, I don’t agree with current copyright laws, I think the big publishers are gigantic heaps of slime and should be burned to the ground. The problem here is that it’s not Internet Archive that should be fighting this fight.

      • FaceDeer@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        30 days ago

        Unlimited copies, look it up. Internet Archive’s “emergency library” broke the customary limits that other libraries stick to in order to keep publishers off their backs - they were giving out as many copies of a book at once as people were requesting, rather than keeping a limited number “in circulation.”

        It really was basically just a piracy site all of a sudden. It’s absolutely no surprise at all that the publishers came down on them like a ton of bricks.

    • المنطقة عكف عفريت@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      30 days ago

      Emphasis added. Storing files is not the problem. Nobody cared when they were just scanning and storing them. The problem arose when they started giving out copies. And worse, giving out copies without restriction - libaries “lend” ebooks by using DRM systems to try to ensure that only a specific number of copies are out “in circulation” at any given time, and so the big publishers have turned a blind eye to that.

      But libraries do not do that to limit access… (I think, unless there is some kind of copyright law making it necessary to restrict access). Don’t they do do that because they have a limited number of book copies that they need to maintain to meet the book lending demands in their area? Seems to me like they are just trying ro maximise people’s access to books given the constraints. Any digital library can obviously do this much faster.