This lawsuit, in and of itself, does not "fundamentally change what it means to own a book" If you believe that change happened, it happened the first time ebooks came out with DRM
-
-
People are so mad over this because the basis of CDL is kind of obviously a bullshit stepping stone to what they actually want Like it's so obvious Brewster Kahle just doesn't like copyright period and he thinks a world where everything is free and authors work for tips is ideal
Show this thread -
The free culture side obviously wants this, it's their stated goal to just end copyright, period, people openly say it to your face constantly So yes it is frustrating trying to argue about the legal status quo of something like CDL and pretend we're not talking about that
Show this thread -
My position is a broadly "pro-copyright" position - I'm flexible on a lot of details but I think the idea of copyright is in and of itself a moral good and worth defending Which is a totally middle of the road position in the real world and on Twitter makes you a Nazi monster
Show this thread -
But as a result I'm really, really certain that the Internet Archive obviously also has as its goal "changing the fundamental definition of owning a book" At least from what most ordinary people think it is, never mind tendentious arguments about the pre-copyrjght golden age
Show this thread -
*Everyone* wants to "change the definition of owning a book" because in the digital era that idea doesn't *have* a definition because everything about it fundamentally works differently That's the whole point
Show this thread
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.