I understand you're upset, bro, but I'm not the one saying you shouldn't get paid. I literally just asked what libraries do for authors.
-
-
Okay, and the answer is that libraries traditionally buy one physical copy of a book for every copy they have in circulation, so authors get paid in proportion to how much "bandwidth" their "file" uses on the physical shelves
1 reply 1 retweet 18 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @soc_lee and
Publishers negotiate licenses for ebooks based on how much more they think ebooks being available for free will cut into sales than physical lending, and scale their fees based on how many copies the library will allow to be "borrowed" at once
2 replies 1 retweet 11 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @soc_lee and
What IA has done that's pissed people off is advance a novel legal theory that if they own a physical book and they scan it they can unilaterally decide to make it available for borrowing under terms they set, without asking permission or paying more money to the author
2 replies 3 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @soc_lee and
What they've done RECENTLY that's pissed people off MORE is to unilaterally relax their lending restrictions (allow infinite copies of a file to be borrowed at once) because of the virus, again without asking or paying anybody
2 replies 2 retweets 7 likes -
No arguments here. And if this is what was being argued, I would be right here with everyone. But that is not the position. The position is that IA has no right to issue any copies, at any time, even when they have a full license for doing so as a vendor for a partner library.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
No, it isn't, this position is entirely based on the unilateral nature of the CDL policy, and is entirely coming from authors who found their work on the Open Library knowing they'd never negotiated a license for it to be there
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @downix and
The whole argument for the necessity of CDL is orphaned works, that there are books that could never be scanned and digitally archived if you had to get a license first because the author can't be found But genuinely orphaned works are a small minority of what they have scanned
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @downix and
The fact that they accept scans of books that came out within the past couple years and are still on their first print run and on bookstore shelves indicates the "orphaned works" argument is just a figleaf, they have no actual intention of limiting their policy to them at all
1 reply 2 retweets 11 likes -
Let's go with that argument a moment. You may be right, but the same could have been said of YouTube during its early days. What would be your recommendation? Btw, thank you for taking the time to discuss
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Google's lawyers argued in 2006 that YouTube had "No value proposition other than copyright infringement" and that by buying YouTube Google was throwing open the doors to widespread normalization of piracy and massive liability concerns They were obviously right
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @downix and
I think ContentID and the like are an obvious necessity for the site to exist at all, obnoxious though they may seem, age nonetheless "tube-style" sites have obviously changed the landscape and made content theft a lot easier and harmed a lot of people
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
I feel that we also need a restructuring of copyright laws to deal with the reality of the digital age. They are, simply, dinosaurs at this point and cannot protect content creators well.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.