no, they compensated due to lack of physical libraries. they expanded access in conjunction with the removal of access in the public sphere. so in reality, it was still close to a 1 to 1.
-
-
The other problem that people don't seem to want to consider is that any ruling in IA's favor wouldn't be "oh, IA is right in this specific case." Because IA's position is that owning a physical copy of a book is a de facto license to lend a digital copy.
-
That is, this de facto license exists, period, in the current law. Extending this a de facto license to lend *as many digital copies as they want* opens a huge can of worms. Because, again, it's not just the IA this would apply to.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
For the record, authors typically do retain primary copyright over their books I'm not saying the economics of publishing are fair or that publishers are innocent of ever pressuring authors to do things they don't want to do
-
But if an author *wants* to put up a PDF of their book for free download, usually nothing at all is stopping them The idea that they've been gaslit by evil publishers into not doing this and the handwavy claims they'd all make more money somehow if they did do this don't hold up
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
authors could request to have their book removed, which made the whining just that. a button press and problem solved. and i was referring to copyright overall, which is really what they are trying to maintain control of.
-
Except that multiple authors have said that when they tried to do that, IA ignored them until they got a lawyer involved. IA appears to prefer sticking their fingers in their ears & pretending they didn’t hear the DMCA takedown requests rather than do anything.
- 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.