Internet Archive responds: Why we released the National Emergency Library

You can sell them for whatever people will pay for them. You can sell the bandwidth for the eBook for whatever people will pay.

>In the pre-e-book world, libraries could always copy books on their own. They could say, we're buying one copy of this book at $25, and then we'll print another thousand copies ourselves at $5 each and sell them to other libraries. Quality might have been lower, but it would have gotten books into the hands of more people, right? Why didn't they?

Because of the same broken copyright system which is going to have lawyers burning down the doors of archive.org once they're allowed to leave their caves post-coronavirus. They should be copying these books and sending them to other libraries for a fraction of the cost.

>I don't disagree. But that's not the world we live in. Food shouldn't be staked on that, but it is. Let's solve that first, and then we can start taking people's livelihoods away.

I didn't suggest we immediately transition to a copyright free world. I said "screw copyright".

And, for the record, we are already in a world where this works. Thousands of content creators in all fields of media are making a living based on crowdsourced funding and free distribution of content to their audience. This model has been consistently growing and doesn't show any signs of slowing down. A lot of people are making more money with this model than they would be with traditional publishing and suing everyone who coughs on their book and lets someone else look at the tissue.

Hell - all businesses face the risk of needing to pivot. Same holds true for authors. If the current approach isn't working because people are sharing your books, then you need to change your approach.

> This means that multiple readers can access a digital book simultaneously

So this is just piracy. That's not how book lending works.

I'm not sure how Youtube et al.'s situation is different in these regards. In both cases, the takedown process is covered under the DMCA, no?

>Copyright doesn't protect data, it protects the creative expression of ideas. Data itself isn't copyrightable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R.... Therefore, nobody is infringing any copyright I have by tracking my behavior via ads.

As an artist, I'd hold that much of my expression is tied up in my data. Likewise, my data is part of the creative expression that I use to market my works. For example, the websites that I choose to visit are part of my subcultural identity and intentionally signal to others that identity, an expression of my personal creativity; the works that I post are dissected and sold as data to market to me. This is an integral aspect of the interaction model of so-called Web 2.0 platforms.

...I'm sure this hasn't been argued before, but should we decide to open the can of worms of whether or not libraries should "be"...

Ultimately, these issues seem to be unexamined, to some extent. I wonder if there's some hesitation to invite a floodgate-opening should a decision go sideways.

This raises an even more important point: what do citizens do when laws are enacted that do not have acceptance or are not considered as legitimate by a majority of citizens?

This is why enacting treaties such as the Berne Conventions (WIPO etc) are so damned dangerous. By their intrinsic nature, it's quite possible for small non-representative groups to have an international treaty enacted/agreed to by all 'member' states without all states even knowing the full ramifications of the said treaty are—they're forced to sign for some other 'quid pro quo' or special trade-off deal etc. Let's face it, this is how Victor Hugo and his cronies 'won' the copyright war (one must concede they played a masterful game and won outright).

As their champions know full well, once a treaty such as the Berne Convention is up and running then it is almost impossible to change it let alone have it abolished. Savvy operators such as Victor Hugo knew this from the very beginning before even entering the campaign (as that's how international politics works). This is especially the case when treaties are about matters that are not considered truly high stakes such as nuclear disarmament.

It depends on one's political stance how one views treaties that have little or no legitimacy among a majority of citizens. Some would argue that they are technically lawful and should be obeyed, others would say they're morally corrupt and thus should be disobeyed or ignored.

It's this dichotomy that's at the center of Copyright Law/Treaties today. The very fact that the 'Big Boys' consider this treaty little more than a nuisance—just noise in the grand scheme of things—is why disputes over Copyright won't end anytime soon.

The fact that such flaky and unrepresentative international treaties can exist says more about the unhealthy state of the laws in each member state. In recent decades we've all witnessed citizens' growing disrespect for institutions such as democracy and its democratic processes. It doesn't take much imagination to realize that all these problems are interrelated.

When systems of law break down or lose their legitimacy what does one do? Again, this depends on one's politics and worldview. At one end there's disorder and anarchy, at the other one becomes subservient to a corrupt state.

Take your choice. What I know is that I certainly don't want anarchy or revolution as many people die and in the long run they end up benefiting no one. Nor do I want to be subservient to law that's been 'legitimized' by corrupt non-repetitiveness processes.

First: that's not what they're doing - they're taking emergency measures during a national crisis to ensure that people still have access to books. They have made explicit their plans to return to business as usual once the nation returns to normalcy.

Second: the first step to change is often civil disobedience. I look forward to seeing how this plays out in court, and I commend their bravery in taking a stand for what's right. What "measurable steps" towards this world would you suggest they take?

>A number of people who produce creative works under Patreon-style models still rely on copyright: they produce works that are available only to paying subscribers, and people who say "this is a zero-marginal-cost product, so I can duplicate it" undermine their ability to get subscribers.

I think I'm qualified to tell you simply that you are wrong. This is not how it works. You can give away your products for free and rely on the voluntary generosity of your audience. Many, many people do. In fact, most people do. Those publishing exclusive content for paid supporters are in the minority in this group.