Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
xhkkffbf | on: The Internet Archive has lost its appeal in Hachette vs. Internet Archive
[flagged]
elaus | parent | next
This court ruling was (also) about "CDL" (controlled digital lending), i.e. lending ONE digital copy of a book for each physical book in a library's possession – and only while the physical copy was not lent.

This is as far away from "giving away infinite copies to anyone" as it could be.

paulryanrogers | root | parent | next
While I agree with your point, there is some nuance because transfers can be nearly instantaneous. Physical books have to be transported to and from the library. CDL is as if we all lived in the same library and could shelve/swap books with anyone at any moment and only have to wait when there is a queue.
dark-star | root | parent
That's what the internet does: it makes things that took days or weeks before (nearly-)instantaneous. If I have 100$, I can lend them to someone (via paypal or whatever), and when I get them back, I can immediately give them out again. I don't have to wait for them to physically go to my place (or a bank) and return cash.

If your whole defense hinges on "borrowing books has to have an inherent delay of X hours/days/weeks before they can be given out again", that's a very weak point in today's day and age. It's like saying "sending mails is bad because it is nearly instantaneous, and you don't have to wait for the postman to deliver your letter".

paulryanrogers | root | parent
As an author it means my book is less likely to be purchased directly by impatient library patrons.
ktallett | root | parent | next
I'd argue it probably doesn't affect it. I have certainly not seen any stats to support that argument. I most certainly would not wait to compete with the rest of the world to read a book once my spot in the queue finally arrived. I would simply buy it.
dark-star | root | parent
hm. That sounds valid on first thought.

On second thought, I don't think the demographic of "people buying (your) books" and "people borrowing (your) books from a library" have that much overlap.

People who borrow books from a library are usually people who either don't want to (or can't) buy all the books they like to read. In that case they are unlikely to buy the book anyway even if they can't find it in the library... OTOH people who love your books or your writings, or people who saw a review and think "I'd like to read that book" will buy it anyway and not read a scanned version of it on their small phone screen.

I mean I understand why authors would love it if libraries didn't exist and everyone had to buy the book to read it, I would probably be in the same boat if I were an author. But the calculation "1 borrowed book = 1 lost sale" is flawed the same way that software companies' "1 warez download = 1 lost sale" is flawed

shams93 | root | parent | next
Exactly this is what people don't get it was like a lending library not a free give away.
dialup_sounds | root | parent
This is misleading.

The lawsuit was filed when IA decided on it's own to increase the lending limit to 10000 copies of each title.

stroupwaffle | parent | next
A lot of the material I checked out on IA was older books still in copyright, but no longer published. And physical copies get warn over time. Existing knowledge should remain accessible. Publishers do not act in the best interest of authors, they squeeze higher percentages from them just like any other content distribution platform.
Ensorceled | root | parent
If IA had fought that fight ... dealing with copyright holders who have stopped publishing and made this content unavailable, they would have had more support at every step of the way.
gosub100 | parent | next
giving a way copies != lost sales.
altruios | parent
Just for the sake of argument, let us say infinite copies kills all profit drive to make a book. What kind of books still get written? There is an argument for the quality of books being made increasing due to only books that have true passion for the sake of sharing being produced under this system... art for the sake of itself, not for the sake of profit.

If your only determining factor for writing a book is to make and profit off of 'valuable intangibles', then I get the ick, just personally for me.

I'm not arguing for more starving artists, I'm arguing art and capitalism don't mix (see AI for further validation of that position).

healsdata | root | parent | next
I think that argument is pretty naive. The only books that would still get made are those from people privileged enough (money and time) to write books.

You'll get way more ghost-written biographies from celebrities and hot takes from politicians.

Cpoll | root | parent | next
I think writing a book to make money is itself pretty naive. There's already a bit of privilege involved in being able to devote time to writing, and in many cases make attempts for years before getting published to modest revenue.

A lot of people start writing books despite knowing those odds and outcomes.

didntcheck | root | parent
And how many give up after one (if that) when they realize they can't afford the time to do it without enough compensation to reduce hours/replace their day job? Especially when it comes to the boring business side of getting it published and marketed. I can imagine someone writing in their spare time (like any other hobby), but it's much harder to imagine going through all the rest of the process unless they're (a) hoping to make a bit of a living from writing (b) doing it for ego reasons (I guess that's were vanity presses come in)
altruios | root | parent
Self publishing is on the rise. Some people feel the need to share, more than the need to make money... that's why a lot of books get written (I believe), generally not to make money, but to share something (the author feels is) important.
didntcheck | root | parent
Yep. This isn't a dichotomy between unscrupulous trend chasers vs passionate artistes writing masterpieces just for the love of it. There are plenty of people who would like to make their living selling creative works that they're passionate about, but there's only a finite amount of time in the day, and bills need to be paid. It's fairly well known that being an author or musician is a difficult career, and this is obviously a bad thing for artistic expression. It biases cultural output towards the financially privileged, or those who pander to those who will sponsor them
daedrdev | root | parent
Who are we to decide books made for profit are not good? In fact many of my favorite books were clearly made in an attempt to trade my money for enjoyment, and were better because of that since they were made with the readers satisfaction as a goal.

Plus there are plenty of people who do it for the art even if they get paid, but the payment makes themselves better off and allows them to continue their work.

Like capitalism allows many authors to be able to create their intended art and find an audience, with both artistry and the desire to make money. And it's not like writing a book is easy, so the money is also extra motivation.