Before the internet you would have to go to a library to read a book you didn't want to purchase. Libraries are still a thing. You can still go there to borrow a book, read it, and return it, so that others can read it.

The only difference here is the magnitude of access, where publishers weren't very concerned with at the local library level for token public good, but are very much now alarmed with, in that the internet can distribute content to everyone all the time, content they were very much hoping to continue to monetize.

It's information gatekeeping, but no one is going to tell the publishing industry they might as well fold up shop and stop publishing because they can't make any money at it any longer.

[–] blindsight@beehaw.org 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I don't follow. The Internet Archive only allows 1 copy of each physical book to be loaned at a time. If someone has the book you want already, then you need to wait until their loan expires. It's not like shadow libraries that allow unrestricted DRM-free downloading.

And publishers' profits are rising and don't seem to be at all correlated to library access, so of course nobody is suggesting they should close.

What am I not understanding?

[–] Grimpen@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 months ago

During the pandemic, Internet Archive very publicly announced they were relaxing their one physical copy per digitally loaned copy.

I think of they had maintained their 1:1 CDL method, the publishers would still be uncomfortable to be the one to sue first, especially since there was a decent argument and IA would have been pretty sympathetic.

Their pandemic policy was effectively not substantially different from a shadow library., and just set up a slam dunk case for the publishers.

load more comments (2 replies)