The article argues that as everything gets more digitized, paper books are on their way out entirely, and ebooks are the future, and therefore you might just never own a book in digital file form again and might rely on "Spotify for books" etc etc
-
Show this thread
-
I agree that that is scary So is the opposite scenario, where because physical books just don't exist anymore, access control of anything doesn't exist anymore Anything that gets the least bit popular instantly becomes a freely shared PDF, all payment for writing is voluntary
2 replies 1 retweet 23 likesShow this thread -
Either way, if that scenario happens, the "controlled digital lending" concept becomes a joke, it's unsustainable, it's a silly fiction If they stop printing physical books then your whole "I should be able to do anything I want with scans of a physical book" doctrine fails
1 reply 0 retweets 15 likesShow this thread -
It's *already* pretty silly that IA claims to have like 100 copies of the same book locked up forever in a shipping container never to be touched again, to justify lending 100 copies of the same file Are they gonna keep printing books to put into crates in the Brave New World
2 replies 1 retweet 17 likesShow this thread -
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
1 reply 3 retweets 20 likesShow 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
1 reply 1 retweet 17 likesShow 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
2 replies 3 retweets 29 likesShow 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
2 replies 3 retweets 12 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @arthur_affect
honestly, they had to know something along the lines of this lawsuit would happen when they kicked off the “emergency open library” shtick. don’t start a fight if you’re not prepared for the full range of results.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @bogo_lode
Yeah I mean people are hitting the roof at people pointing this out saying it's "victim blaming" etc But I mean the Authors Guild, SFWA, the NWU, etc have been loudly and vociferously arguing CDL is illegal for *nine years*
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes
So, yes, when lots of people obviously hate the basic concept and are itching to sue you but haven't done it yet because they're not sure they could win, and then you do a sudden massive expansion of that concept... what do you think it's gonna happen
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @bogo_lode
The conspiracy-ish argument that the National Emergency Library wasn't just about coronavirus, it was a deliberate strategy to trigger a lawsuit because Kahle was tired of the "legal limbo" keepin libraries from adopting CDL en masse, seems pretty likely to me
0 replies 1 retweet 4 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.