The Internet Archive recently started "The Emergency Library" or something to that effect where they are now lending out unlimited books-- not limiting what and how much they lend out based on what they physically own as they did previously.

There's an opt-out. And they're partnering with a bunch of other libraries that are closed due to the pandemic so maybe they'll get to count all of those copies as well. They also excluded all books published recently. So I doubt any author or publisher will be able to show significant damages in court.

> They also excluded all books published recently.

One of my books was published in 2014 and is on the list.

> There's an opt-out.

Because authors can opt out of having their books pirated, that makes it OK? How are authors notified about the existence of the opt-out? Oh, they're not? Hmm.

The cutoff was five years. @textfiles on Twitter has offered to help authors with the process. He recommends contacting him via DM to avoid harassment from eager IA defenders.

So the Internet Archive believes that copyright protection for creative works should extend no more than five years past the date of publication?

I'm all for copyright reform, but that's a preposterously short period. One hundred years ago, copyright lasted for 28 years, with the potential to renew for another 28 years.

Even if you went back to that copyright term WITHOUT the renewal, five years is still less than 20 percent of that.

Please don't strawman the IA's position. They suspended the waitlist of (parts of) their library collection for 3 months during a global pandemic that necessitated the closure of physical libraries. The books still cannot be redistributed freely and will have to be returned.

Was that legal? Possibly not, so authors and rights holders do have a grievance. But personally, I'm going to judge anyone who's going to the courts instead of merely opting out.

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

The books are still DRMd so it's not as crazy as one might expect.

It was. Some of us pointed this out at the time and got downvoted for saying that reality does not conform to "thing other HN posters would like."

> Some of us pointed this out at the time and got downvoted for saying that reality does not conform to "thing other HN posters would like."

I am completely willing to believe that some people did, but the overwhelming majority I saw were getting downvoted for (whether deliberately or carelessly) confusing "copyright infringement is not legal" (which is true, but common knowledge) with "copyright infringement is not a active moral good" (which is false, at least of the type of copyright infringement archive.org is doing), and concluding that the Internet Archive was doing something morally, rather than just strategically, wrong.

Normal libraries have to pay quite a bit of money to participate in the digital world - purchasing the right to lend out an ebook, and only being able to distribute the book some 30-50 times before having to re-purchase the rights.

The IA is not paying these fees, and so there's some copyright questions around the distribution rights of scans of legitimate purchases to be answered.

There is no reason that these should be seperate rights to buying an ebook, once.

The right to distribute a thing at scale and the right to buy a single copy for yourself just can't be the same thing. Should a movie theater that sells ten thousand tickets have to pay the film studio for the cost of a single DVD and then be free to do whatever they want?

And yet that's exactly what you're "buying" when you crowdfund a freely redistributable work. Even some movies have been crowdfunded in this way, such as the animation movie Big Buck Bunny.

There is a reason: Profit.

Is it a good and moral reason? Not in my opinion. But it is a reason.

In a normal library, they have to obtain one copy for each copy checked out.

Oh I guess I kind of assumed that was what they were doing, although I guess I didn't explicitly see that anywhere. If they really do lend more copies then they've purchased then IA is pretty clearly in the wrong.

They suspended their waitlist until June 30 ("or the end of the US national emergency, whichever is later") in response to library closures.

They do that (or used to at least). Each book has a single scanned copy that only a singe person can have "checked out" at any given time. There's a waiting line you sign up for.

That's how they used to do it, but is that still the case after they introduced the emergency library? I thought they now lend unlimited copies of the book unless the authors opt-out, and imo it's a little bit legally shaky for them to simply go against the law unless you ask them not to?