Staying true to the centuries-old library concept, only one patron at a time can rent a digital copy of a physical book for a limited period.
This is misleading. IA had a restriction of one digital copy per real copy scanned, however they removed this restriction during covid - and that was when the publishers sued.
End of the day, IA tried to test the limits of them and ended up having them defined better in favour of the publishers. They paint themselves as the victim, but actually it’s their actions that made things worse. Hopefully they’ll straighten things out a bit in the appeal, but IA only have themselves to blame here.
I don’t know dude. I think the publishers here are in the wrong too.
IA does a lot more than being a library and this lawsuit will probably crush them. For the big publishers, the lent files are probably a fraction of a fraction of a percentage for their business.
IA also archives a lot of data, including hard to find books, websites, trailers, etc. I don’t think anyone else will step up to replace them.
Publishers absolutely were in the wrong, morally, but my point is that IA stepped out of the legal grey area and into what was completely wrong in law. Then, they (and apparently their argument still does) rely on a judge basically making the law up, and in doing so left no real option for the judge but to rule against them. Now, the grey area isn’t grey anymore, it’s explicitly prohibited.
If IA hadn’t broken the one digital per physical copy rule, or if they’d settled out of court or done anything sensible with their lawsuit, they wouldn’t have made the law worse.
If you don’t believe in copyright, whatever, but IA was doing something blatantly violating the law and getting away with it until they decided to flamboyantly draw attention to themselves by removing the veneer of legality and just giving away unlimited copies.
It is a bullshit fake restriction because it doesn’t even exist. However, it’s something of a grey area that, up until IA poked the hornets nest, allowed a bit of wiggle room to get away with breaking copyright law.
Now a judge has ruled that managing one digital copy per physical copy is explicitly against the law as written. They aren’t even trying any sort of fair use argument, they’re basically just saying “we do public good” but don’t actually explain how that means anything in law.
Meanwhile, the lawyers get paid, and IA goes on fundraising campaigns.
This is misleading. IA had a restriction of one digital copy per real copy scanned, however they removed this restriction during covid - and that was when the publishers sued.
End of the day, IA tried to test the limits of them and ended up having them defined better in favour of the publishers. They paint themselves as the victim, but actually it’s their actions that made things worse. Hopefully they’ll straighten things out a bit in the appeal, but IA only have themselves to blame here.
I don’t know dude. I think the publishers here are in the wrong too.
IA does a lot more than being a library and this lawsuit will probably crush them. For the big publishers, the lent files are probably a fraction of a fraction of a percentage for their business.
IA also archives a lot of data, including hard to find books, websites, trailers, etc. I don’t think anyone else will step up to replace them.
Publishers absolutely were in the wrong, morally, but my point is that IA stepped out of the legal grey area and into what was completely wrong in law. Then, they (and apparently their argument still does) rely on a judge basically making the law up, and in doing so left no real option for the judge but to rule against them. Now, the grey area isn’t grey anymore, it’s explicitly prohibited.
If IA hadn’t broken the one digital per physical copy rule, or if they’d settled out of court or done anything sensible with their lawsuit, they wouldn’t have made the law worse.
In the wrong how?
If you don’t believe in copyright, whatever, but IA was doing something blatantly violating the law and getting away with it until they decided to flamboyantly draw attention to themselves by removing the veneer of legality and just giving away unlimited copies.
well it’s a bullshit fake restriction that has zero need to exist beyond greed. very cool of them to try to get something going.
It is a bullshit fake restriction because it doesn’t even exist. However, it’s something of a grey area that, up until IA poked the hornets nest, allowed a bit of wiggle room to get away with breaking copyright law.
Now a judge has ruled that managing one digital copy per physical copy is explicitly against the law as written. They aren’t even trying any sort of fair use argument, they’re basically just saying “we do public good” but don’t actually explain how that means anything in law.
Meanwhile, the lawyers get paid, and IA goes on fundraising campaigns.