Internet Archive forced to remove 500k books after publishers' court win

Post by account42 » Tue, Jun 25, 2024, 8:57 AM UTC

CaptainFever wrote: post #336

Zuiii wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The line to draw is 10 years to commercialize, and then release into public domain. Statute of Anne was 14 years ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne ), but 10 is better for today's age. I'd vote for politicians who push for laws like this. Sadly none do.

Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technolibertarianism

Post by account42 » Tue, Jun 25, 2024, 9:03 AM UTC

WillAdams wrote: post #450

pessimizer wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they're selling an ebook, I'm pretty sure that counts as in-print. You don't have to finance that. We don't need to kill trees to read, just like at one point we stopped killing goats to read. > That's why current copyright status should be the bar --- that or granted permission from the copyright holder. Copyright terms are nearly infinite at this point.

Life plus 70 is scarcely "nearly infinite", and since Disney didn't try to extend the Sonny Bono copyright extension so as to keep "Steamboat Willie" in copyright, this doesn't seem likely to change. It's also the result of an international consensus: http://copyright.nova.edu/copyright-duration/

Post by account42 » Tue, Jun 25, 2024, 9:07 AM UTC

rml wrote: post #189

> And even when IA temporarily stopped limiting the number of loans to provide emergency access to books during the pandemic—which could be considered a proxy for publishers' fear that IA's lending could pose a greater threat if it became much more widespread—IA's expert "found no evidence of market harm." I feel that IA erred very badly in lifting the one-to-one correspondence that is at the heart of "controlled dig…

Post by account42 » Tue, Jun 25, 2024, 9:36 AM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #494

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All you said was “You cannot make money off of people who are starving.” Yes you can, by coercing them in various legal and illegal ways. Your original comment was just the one quoted sentence above. It is not correct.

[flagged]

Post by account42 » Tue, Jun 25, 2024, 9:54 AM UTC

deknos wrote: post #424

Jensson wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Star Trek Replicators were invented today, we're so stupid we'd outlaw them. History shows the labor unions and leftists would also be against replicators. We see that today with how people are very against AI advancements that would put artists out of jobs, they would rather halt progress than lose their jobs. Of course corporations that stand to lose out are also against it, but don't kid yourself labor moveme…

> History shows the labor unions and leftists would also be against replicators. Only because the rich would exploit the replicators and would leave everyone else in the dust starving. Nobody would have a problem with it, if you could survive on them.