Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
posted by Fnord666 on Thursday April 02 2020, @08:28AM   Printer-friendly
from the writers-gotta-eat dept.

Authors fume as online library "lends" unlimited free books:

For almost a decade, the Internet Archive, an online library best known for its Internet Wayback Machine, has let users "borrow" scanned digital copies of books held in its warehouse. Until recently, users could only check out as many copies as the organization had physical copies. But last week, The Internet Archive announced it was eliminating that restriction, allowing an unlimited number of users to check out a book simultaneously. The Internet Archive calls this the National Emergency Library.

Initial media coverage of the service was strongly positive. The New Yorker declared it a "gift to readers everywhere." But as word of the new service spread, it triggered a backlash from authors and publishers.

"As a reminder, there is no author bailout, booksellers bailout, or publisher bailout," author Alexander Chee tweeted on Friday. "The Internet Archive's 'emergency' copyrights grab endangers many already in terrible danger."

"It is a tarted-up piracy site," wrote author James Gleick.

Previously:

Internet Archive Suspends E-Book Lending "Waiting Lists" During U.S. National Emergency


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Booga1 on Thursday April 02 2020, @09:31AM (3 children)

    by Booga1 (6333) on Thursday April 02 2020, @09:31AM (#978265)

    I can understand why fiction writers would object to unlimited distribution of their books without compensation. I don't necessarily think that it's a negative, but I get it.
    For non-fiction writers, I would expect them to be a bit more practical. Every piece of information they manage to convey to the rest of us is a good thing. A candle's light is not diminished by a mirror, nor is it lessened by lighting another candle.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 02 2020, @05:22PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 02 2020, @05:22PM (#978382)

    Specifically, look at all those fanfiction sites, and at the original "webnovels" and such. All distributed without compensation.
    I assure you, the percentage of quality works among them is in no way less than among the works sold for money.

    Now note that reading such a free work uses up exactly the same amount of reader's free time as a paid one of same length. Remember that said free time is a very limited resource; one that cannot be increased beyond about 16 hours a day even with unlimited money, and is on average several times less. Remember that totally unlike time, an electronically distributed book is not used up, however many people do read and re-read it however many times. And now consider how, given all that, a mediocre copyright-based income source can compete with free.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Thursday April 02 2020, @10:50PM

    by fido_dogstoyevsky (131) <{axehandle} {at} {gmail.com}> on Thursday April 02 2020, @10:50PM (#978478)

    I can understand why fiction writers would object to unlimited distribution of their books without compensation...

    I actually don't care about what they think - unless they're willing to give up unreasonable copyright lengths. "Piracy"* may also be unreasonable, but wars are always fought using unreasonable means.

    ...Every piece of information they [nonfiction writers] manage to convey to the rest of us is a good thing. A candle's light is not diminished by a mirror, nor is it lessened by lighting another candle.

    The information isn't copyright, only the permutation of words they happen to use is.
     
     
    *breaking copyright law, not attacks on civilian ships.

    --
    It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.