The "blanket argument" is you shouldn't have any rights associated with digital content that weren't explicitly negotiated with the rightsholder The reason people consider this "extreme" is the whole "physical is no different from digital" argument
-
-
My concern is that if libraries cannot use a middleware vendor, like IA, Amazon, or OverDrive, it would make the cost of lending too high for any but the largest library systems to manage.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
It's not about the existence of a middleman it's about the existence of an additional license created from thin air nobody negotiated
1 reply 1 retweet 7 likes -
But that is the crux of my concern over the authors guild's arguments. Remember, their position is not that IA is over lending, but that it is lending at all, despite being a middleware partner for several libraries.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
No, their position is over the UNILATERAL LICENSE, of lending WITHOUT FURTHER COMPENSATION FOR THE AUTHOR
1 reply 1 retweet 7 likes -
Quoting the Authors Guild: IA has no rights whatsoever to these books
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Yes, because they didn't pay for them Their position is that buying a physical copy gives you no digital distribution rights whatsoever, which is completely fair (copyright case law has ALWAYS regarded transferring from one medium to another as legally significant)
1 reply 1 retweet 15 likes -
But the libraries which IA is handling ebook distributor for did. Plus IA has a large collection of PD and CC works. You agree that yes, IA can distribute those, yes?
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Yes, and the Authors Guild isn't talking about that, they're talking about the Open Library system, which throws up scans of physical books *without checking* if those books are public domain, orphaned works, if the authors agree to it, etc based on the CDL logic
2 replies 2 retweets 7 likes -
But the AG does not say that. I am going by what the AG is saying, which is a blanket statement which, if is accepted, would hurt many groups far beyond IA, namely libraries. Which is my original point.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
They're saying the IA has no rights to the books that the IA does not, in fact, have rights to, not that it's IMPOSSIBLE to GET rights to the books by having the author agree to it
-
-
That is not what they said. The exact words were no rights whatsoever, no qualifying over one book from another. But, they do have some rights, even if not the ones IA claims.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
- Show replies
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.