There are many excellent points in that post that rest on a very shaky foundation of it being a defense of a billionaire’s privately operated site.
Uhhh, because while the law isn’t settled on CDL, it is absolutely settled on unlimited distribution of works that you do not own the rights to distribute unlimitedly. It’s not Macmillan’s definition of piracy, it’s society’s. That was Chuck’s entire point.
-
-
If you’d bothered to read what he wrote instead of going full pitchfork, you’d have realized his issue isn’t with IA digitally distributing works. It’s that they do not own the rights to distribute them in an unlimited fashion, and doing so is a net harm to marginalized authors.
-
And while Ars Technica has a wonderful piece on how piracy can actually result in positive net sales for GAMES, that same article points out that the study which found that also found it has the accepted net negative on films and BOOKS.
- Voir les réponses
Nouvelle conversation -
-
-
No, that isn't "society's" rule, that's why everyone is yelling at you and Wendig both for being stooges. It's publishers' rule, and it's one libraries are still fighting tooth and nail so they can still exist without having to pay for every time they lend out a book.
-
Copyright law isn't the writ of God and it isn't self-evident moral truth. It's doubly so in this case, where it isn't even resolved copyright law. These were books lent on a short-term basis by a library that owned legally-purchased copies of them.
Fin de la conversation
Nouvelle conversation -
Le chargement semble prendre du temps.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.