
Sizzle Then Fizzle: Buzzy Titles and Borrowing Digitized Books - polm23
https://blog.archive.org/2020/05/21/sizzle-then-fizzle-buzzy-titles-and-borrowing-digitized-books/
======
mauvehaus
I think a fair question to ask is: "How many of the people borrowing these
"buzzy" titles" would actually go out and buy a copy if they couldn't borrow
it?"

Given the article's claim that very few are actually reading it when they can
borrow it for free, the answer is likely very few.

People who wish to cast the issue as one of lost revenue would like to think
that every one of those "borrowers" in the queue represents a lost sale. The
NEL is in a position to provide some data that doesn't directly refute that
claim, but certainly suggests that it's wildly overblown.

------
jawns
Just a reminder ... the Internet Archive is pretending it's a library, but
unlike real libraries, it's lending out copies it doesn't actually own or have
a license to lend.

Previously, if it owned 5 copies of a book, it would lend out only 5 digital
copies at a time, under a system called Controlled Digital Lending:
[https://controlleddigitallending.org](https://controlleddigitallending.org)

Now, its National Emergency program does away with that. It might only own 5
copies of a book, but it will lend out an unlimited number of digital copies
at a time.

It justifies this by saying that our nation's public libraries are closed
right now, so it is filling the void.

But the Internet Archive doesn't have the authority to treat those copies
sitting in public libraries as its own, for the purpose of digitally lending
them out.

I know there are a lot of ways in which copyright laws and digital lending
licenses have their own problems, and so there are many who think the Internet
Archive is just giving copyright holders and publishers their comeuppance. But
I think it's fair to say that they're doing it in a way that runs afoul of the
law.

~~~
toomuchtodo
This is your opinion. The Archive’s opinion is that they’re operating within
the guidelines of fair use. It has not been tested in court yet.

Based on your profile it appears you’re an author; you benefit from the vast
overreach that is today’s copyright statute.

~~~
jawns
Correct, I'm an author. I have four nonfiction books published between 2013
and 2020.

For what it's worth, I agree with you about the absurd length of copyright
protections. I am in favor of reducing the duration of copyright to a more
reasonable length -- perhaps going back to the 1909 Act, which established a
28-year term that can be renewed for another 28-year term.

But I hardly think any reasonable person would say that copyright duration
should be 6 years or less. Yet the Internet Archive is lending out digital
copies of my 2014 book with no wait lists. It likely purchased or acquired one
physical copy of that book but is distributing an unlimited number of digital
copies. In every practical way, that is indistinguishable from piracy.

This isn't necessarily putting a dent in my wallet. My guess is that
relatively few people who would access my book via the Internet Archive would
otherwise go out and buy it with their own money.

But copyright gives me the ability to determine who gets to publish and
distribute my creative works. And I have not given the Internet Archive
permission to do so, nor does the "fair use" exception give them the ability
to lend out copies they don't own during national emergencies.

~~~
toomuchtodo
You are free to opt out here [1].

> Authors who do not want their books in the National Emergency Library should
> send an email to info@archive.org with “National Emergency Library Removal
> Request” as the subject line. Please include each URL of the book or books
> you would like to have removed. Please allow up to 72 hours for processing
> as we are a small team.

I am a reasonable person, and believe that even 28 years is too long. Perhaps
10 years, tops, for both patents and copyright. I am not a domain expert
though, and therefore would defer to someone who is, such as Lawrence Lessig
[2].

[1] [https://help.archive.org/hc/en-
us/articles/360042654251-Nati...](https://help.archive.org/hc/en-
us/articles/360042654251-National-Emergency-Library-
FAQs#h_eb32bd5e-40c1-450d-8035-77e1d54a6a2b)

[2]
[https://hls.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/10519/Lessig](https://hls.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/10519/Lessig)

~~~
jawns
I'm aware of the opt-out option, but I don't think that makes the National
Emergency Library program any more palatable.

There are plenty of other piracy sites out there that are distributing digital
copies of my books illegally, and if any of them were to offer an opt-out
option, I would feel the same way. It's still piracy.

~~~
toomuchtodo
I believe we fundamentally disagree about the extent to which copyright should
provide for rights and controls for those who generate content. I appreciate
the conversation regardless.

------
anticsapp
For those of you interested in donating to archive.org, you should be aware
that they recently bought out Bop Street record store in Seattle:
[https://www.seattletimes.com/entertainment/music/a-happy-
end...](https://www.seattletimes.com/entertainment/music/a-happy-ending-for-
seattles-bop-street-records-a-nonprofit-buys-up-the-entire-collection/)

While they might have gotten a good six figure price, that store is known by
fellow record dealers to be largely garbage LPs. It is more accumulation than
collection. I wouldn't trust them with donation money for whatever flight of
fancy they have next.

~~~
detaro
Does the judgement of record dealers of what a good collection is match what
an archive wants? I.e. what does define a "garbage LP"?

~~~
mauvehaus
For example: any album by Chicago which you can find several copies of in any
used record store in the country?

