181–190 of 835 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Libraries' ebook lending programs are not legal because they require membership and use DRM. They're legal because they're authorized by the copyright owners , and those are the terms the copyright owners choose to impose (along with licensing fees).
But if I purchase the paper book, there is - thankfully - no shrink-wrap licensing anywhere that tells me that I can or cannot lend it to anyone, yet I sure hope I can. Why IA can't?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Citing the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact indicates you have no understanding of the political organization of the United States of America. I implore you to do your homework, but I will tell you the compact would only serve to reduce the voice of the people (that is to say, reduce democracy) rather than increase them.
Please look into responding with empathy and grace instead. You took a chance to educate and threw it away. What would you hope to gain from such an interaction?
The United States of America is exactly what it says on the tin: A Union of States. Each State is equal to all the others, united somewhat loosely as a Federal Republic.
With regards to the consequences of the Compact, it would destroy the democratic right of the people of each State to decide, for themselves, who will represent their State in the Executive Branch of the Federal government. The President of the United States represents the States in the Union and is elected by the States, the States in turn determine who they elect as President by respectively asking for their people to vote who their State should vote for.
You might ask who in the Executive Branch of government represents the peoples of each State directly, that role falls upon the Governor of each respective State.
The Compact would reduce the voice of the people and the sovereignties of States by removing their right to decide, for themselves, who to elect for President of the United States. People from one State would be able to overrule the people of another State, and vice versa. You're in California and voted for Bob? Tough shit, someone in North Dakota voted for Alex and your vote quite literally does not matter.
Citing and supporting the Compact indicates you have no understanding of who, and more accurately what, the President of the United States represents. It indicates you have no understanding what powers and rights each State and their respective peoples hold. If you are in a larger State, it indicates you have no care for what your fellow Americans and Statesmen think; if you are in a smaller State, it indicates you are fine with forfeiting your right to vote in deference to the nationwide majority.
If you sincerely think the Compact would improve democracy in the United States of America, at best you are misguided and were misled, and at worst you are disingenuous with ulterior motives.
Yikes. I borrow books constantly from the IA that are hard/impossible to find elsewhere because they've gone out of print. A lot of academic-ish non-fiction from the 1960s-1980s, stuff you can only otherwise get through inter-library loan that takes weeks rather than seconds. Any idea if this means IA has to shut down lending by when? Tomorrow? Next month? Any chances for appeal here? Or any chance they relocate the…
> I borrow books constantly from the IA that are hard/impossible to find elsewhere because they've gone out of print. A lot of academic-ish non-fiction from the 1960s-1980s, stuff you can only otherwise get through inter-library loan that takes weeks rather than seconds. Try Library Genesis: https://libgen.is/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assume this will be appealed, as what decision like this isn't appealed.
“We will appeal.” https://twitter.com/internetarchive/status/16394247772647219...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/03/22/book-publishers-wont-sto... is a good overview (from a day or two before the judgement). >Every part of that has been deemed legal. Copyright law already has first sale rights, written directly into the law and allow for the lending or reselling of copyright-covered works without a license or permission. Similarly libraries are given explicit rights to make copies, so long as those…
The article doesn't seem to understand the issue. Whether a copy of a work is fair use turns on, amongst other things, the effect of the copy on the potential market for the original. The article acknowledges this. Controlled Digital Lending competes directly with the licensing scheme publishers have for library ebooks. The fair use argument was always doomed to fail. The article then completely ignores the copyright…
I'm not convinced fair use is the strongest argument in IA's case. But the idea that lending ebook copies can't be fair use simply because it competes with publishers' ebook licensing schemes seems like a misreading of how fair use is typically applied.
Of course other fair use considerations factor in, but the market impact for a specific format isn't a death blow against reproductions of a work, generally speaking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you disagree because of the Sabbath?
Not OP, but I think having one day where nearly everyone (except restaurants, attractions, hospitality and essential services) has off is good for family cohesion. It gives everyone a guaranteed weekly timeslot to spend time together.
America will rule in favour of private property and against the common good every single time, unless forced to do otherwise by external circumstances. Famously it only went against segregation because "Racial discrimination furnishes grist for the Communist propaganda mills." (Attorney General James P. McGranery) https://redsails.org/concessions/ Fortunately this means more of an impetus for piracy in the meantime,…
Thankfully that's the best outcome. Unless you mean you support eminent domain.
I'd pay hell to the country that even plans on using it against me, and I'll follow and protect others who this happens to as well. Anyone who decides they can steal my resources will have to fight for it.
You do not own me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you disagree because of the Sabbath?
Not OP, but I think having one day where nearly everyone (except restaurants, attractions, hospitality and essential services) has off is good for family cohesion. It gives everyone a guaranteed weekly timeslot to spend time together.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Citing the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact indicates you have no understanding of the political organization of the United States of America. I implore you to do your homework, but I will tell you the compact would only serve to reduce the voice of the people (that is to say, reduce democracy) rather than increase them.
The NPVIC could be a great advancement for democracy but since the side advantaged by the current system has zero incentive to agree to it, the idea is counterproductive without a mandate requiring the entire country to participate.
You are absolutely right that the States, particularly the smaller and weaker States, would have zero incentive to agree to surrender their sovereignties in deference to the other States.
The United States of America is a Union of States, and the first step to further democracy in this country is respecting the sacred fact that each State and the people within them each have the right to decide their own path. Violating their sovereignties is destructive for democracy.