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.
Okay that seems like pretty brazen copyright infringement then. That's crazy! Maybe they hope to disrupt the publishing industry, but really just sounds like a way to get sued.
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.
> 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.
