There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

NathanielThomas ,

People say the internet never forgets but most things have a five year shelf life and then get deleted. It’s nice to know way back machine saves copies

CanadaPlus ,

Wow, the author really seems to take the publisher’s side here. I’m surprised they’re listed as just an academic, I was expecting it to be an industry spokesperson.

trafficnab ,

After finishing her PhD, also in archaeology, she decided to follow her passion for books, and pursue a career in publishing. She worked for over 15 years in scholarly and educational book publishing, commissioning and project-managing a wide range of non-fiction titles, producing ebooks and implementing accessible publishing practices.

Person working in publishing for 15 years sides with publishers, shocker

CanadaPlus ,

Ahh, there it is!

buddascrayon ,

This last bit kills me

It’s beyond time that readers and consumers of all cultural output recognise the cost of creating cultural material. If we want authors to survive, we’ve got to stop assuming that authors’ intellectual labour is a public commodity. In the broader context of current generative AI discussions, I think our whole community is fed up with short-sighted arguments that aim to justify the ripping off of authors – whose earnings sit at an average of $18,200 per year.

For the record, the national minimum wage in Australia is $45,905 per year.

It’s so disingenuous. Authors are not making so little because of library sharing or internet sharing. They’re making that little because publishers take the largest cut and have a stranglehold on publishing. 🙄

SineSwiper ,
@SineSwiper@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

There is also an incredibly huge saturation of authors, musicians, actors, artists, and other creatives that all expect to make it a career. It’s far from realistic, and the stripping down of public domain through many decades of shady copyright extension laws have just been propping up this house of cards, at the expense of the public that deserves it.

For the past 20 years or so, especially with the Internet accelerating the process, people are starting to realize that these are not good career choices, and these industries will turn into mostly free hobbies, based on their passion to create.

Even now, I can throw a stick at some random artist on Bandcamp, and find great music for free who has barely any subscribers. Why spend $15 for a CD? Why spend money on royalties for using music on a video, when so many artists give it out copyright free?

30mag ,

This decision leaves a concerning gap: it does not apply to physical books that are not currently available digitally. As Olivia Lanchester, CEO of the Australian Society of Authors, observed to me in an email:

there is a commercial market for digital book licensing, as evidenced by the Untapped Project in Australia. By allowing Internet Archive to retain digitised versions of print books so long as no ebook edition is available, a valid future market for authors is undermined.

Cry me a river, build a bridge, get over it.

For example, authors of out-of-print works may choose to later publish their work in an ebook format and monetise that edition. The deficiency in the court’s ruling is that the Internet Archive can beat them to it – and supply their work for free.

I guess you better get your rear in gear.

NightAuthor ,

“Right of the authors”, sounds like a propaganda piece. It’s quite objectively in the favor of the copyright holders.

AphoticDev ,
@AphoticDev@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

This is why I sail the high seas. Copyright is an affront to liberty.

yogthos ,
@yogthos@lemmy.ml avatar

This is an affront on preservation of human knowledge and keeping it accessible. This is a perfect example of what utter cancer copyright is.

HexesofVexes ,

The ramifications of this ruling are astoundingly dire.

The notion of controlled digital lending was a good counter to “ebook packages” that come with a yearly sub. At the moment, that yearly sub eats a large chunk of university budgets because academic texts are harder to get for free (we are a captive audience, though we do have scihub to help somewhat). In terms of books outside academia, I’m not looking at prices but I can tell you which direction they’ll now go.

I’m sure you can guess which direction library budgets are not going to go.

In essence, it’s forcing digital from a “purchase to lend” to a “subscribe to lend” model, which is going to really hurt libraries. This doesn’t even begin to explore the full horror of censorship - “I’m sorry, LGBTQ+ texts are not available to bundle for your library due to local laws prohibiting them”. That’s a topic that deserves its own book!

library_napper ,
@library_napper@monyet.cc avatar

four major publishers – Hachette, HarperCollins, John Wiley & Sons, and Penguin Random House – to file a lawsuit against Internet Archive in June 2020.

Well now you know which publishers to steal from 100% of the time

finestnothing ,

I pirate almost every book, the only ones I actually buy are new ones from authors I love (Brandon Sanderson is the main one) or books I pirated that I loved enough to want to support the author

library_napper ,
@library_napper@monyet.cc avatar

Honestly if you want to support an artist, dont buy their work. Steal their work and give them a donation. Otherwise you’re mostly supporting the middle-men more than the artist.

library_napper ,
@library_napper@monyet.cc avatar

Internet Archive’s distribution of copyrighted works is problematic.

Since when? That’s literally what a library is supposed to do…

cobra89 ,

It was the fact that during the pandemic they forwent the rule that 1 copy they owned could only be rented out to 1 person at a time. Any library operates by that principal for exactly this reason. Even digital copies, they can only lend out so many at a time. During the pandemic archive.org ignored this rule which was noble of them considering the circumstances, but now those consequences are coming back to bite them.

Personally I think I was dumb to risk the whole Internet Archive to offer that and hopefully they use this as a lesson to consult more with their lawyers going forward.

bane_killgrind ,

You can literally photocopy every single page out of a book at a physical library.

It’s not the paradigm, it’s the convenience and ease of access.

FartsWithAnAccent ,
@FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.world avatar

Oh FFS!

randon31415 ,

Wasn’t it that there buy a book, loan 1 book digitally was perfectly fine, but then during covid, they bought 1 book and then loaned 100s because it was an emergency?

stevedidWHAT ,
@stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world avatar

Source? Interested in reading more about this if you have it

randon31415 ,

I think it was this

Kirkkh ,

Great a source I consistently use for bettering myself isn’t commodified enough. Can’t wait to pay Johnny no amount is enough for the privilege of learning.

taanegl ,

Aaaw. Publishers caring about authors? That’s a big fat lie. Make no mistake, no matter what type of publisher, be it literary, musical, dramatic (TV & film), the only goal is to consolidate ingellectual property, employ predatory and lobsided contracts and then pretend that they represent the creators.

Fact is that lending, and also digital lending, has a negligible result on the author’s bottom line. The publishers however want libraries gone because then they make their investors happy. That’s it.

Know the motivation and intention behind this, because it isn’t to protect the income of authors.

Zacryon ,

If we want authors to survive, we’ve got to stop assuming that authors’ intellectual labour is a public commodity.

Ah yes, because it’s the fault of (internet) libraries and not greedy publishers who try to keep the royalties for their authors as low as possible. /s

How about looking where this problem starts instead of where it ends?

rgb3x3 ,

Piracy dies (mostly) with easy and reasonably priced ways to pay for content. Most people don’t want to do something illegal and want to support those who make content.

But when publishers like Warner Brothers are removing content from services making pirating sites the only place to find artists’ work, then little are going to pirate.

Without sites like the Internet Archive, so much stuff would risk being lost forever because of greedy copyright practices.

xuxebiko OP ,

IA helps keep democracy alive. Documentaries that are banned by dictators, like the BBC documentary on Modi that was banned in India by Modi, would be unavailable to people without IA.

ZzyzxRoad ,

Especially fucking Wiley. If you’re a student paying hundreds for a textbook with a “supplemental code” that makes it so you can’t buy it used, then it’s probably by fucking Wiley. Fucking greedy cunts.

Paradoxvoid ,
@Paradoxvoid@aussie.zone avatar

If we want authors to survive, we’ve got to stop assuming that authors’ intellectual labour is a public commodity.

The irony being that this is exactly what copyright was originally intended to facilitate - authors creating works to become public domain within a relatively short period of time.

MacroCyclo ,

There are authors starting to publish without a publisher. I think that is the right direction, not making all books free. Maybe once the publishers have less control there will be some copyright reforms to shorten the time it takes to bring works into the public domain. Right now it is 95 years from publishing, but I think the author’s life plus 30 years or something might make a bit more sense. For example, George Orwell has been dead for over 70 years, but his works are still under copyright.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •