SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(Score: 5, Insightful) by stretch611 on Thursday April 02 2020, @01:23PM (4 children)
I totally agree.
And the original purpose of copyright in the US was to encourage authors to write more books (or whatever creative work,) not to make one and sit on its profits for your lifetimes and the lifetime of your grandchildren as well.
This current time would be a windfall had the original intent lived with us today... The virus and stay at home orders would have people reading their older books for free, and if they liked your works, you can be assured that they would then buy your more recent titles.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Thursday April 02 2020, @03:38PM (3 children)
And the original purpose of copyright in the US was to encourage authors to write more books (or whatever creative work,) not to make one and sit on its profits for your lifetimes and the lifetime of your grandchildren as well.
Exactly, which is why the original term was only 20 years IIRC. I have no respect for copyright, because the copyright cartels got that extended to an absurdly-long time (author's lifetime plus 70 years): this isn't useful for society, it's only useful for authors, or for corporations that buy up the authors' rights.
Return copyright terms to 20 years or less if you want me to respect them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 02 2020, @07:11PM (2 children)
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright#Early_United_States_copyright_law [wikipedia.org] , copyright in the US varied across the colonies/states and was eventually formalized as:
Unless the author died or possibly failed to renew, it was 28 years.
About a hundred years later some international standardization began, discussed in the next section after the link above:
In other words, long (C) terms have been around for nearly 150 years now.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ze on Thursday April 02 2020, @08:52PM
Which has nothing to do with the original purpose or practice of copyright in the US, who your link notes didn't joint the Berne Convention and adopt its guidelines until 1989. I think it's fair to argue that a sound policy got usurped by a bad one there, and it doesn't matter if the bad one happened to be older, it amounts to part of the problem, all the same.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 04 2020, @10:37PM
So in other words, the situation of copyright overreach is even worse than most people think.