Hacker News Reader

Comment by gpvos | Hacker News Reader

Apparently it's about these: https://archive.org/details/last20 (only 60 books)

Article with rationale: https://blog.archive.org/2018/01/24/digital-books-on-archive...

That sound pretty awesome to be honest.

> The digital protection allows books to be lent via downloads that disappear (or become inaccessible) when the loan period ends (e.g. two weeks). For users who prefer to read their ebooks directly in a browser, the same thing happens. The book becomes inaccessible at the end of the loan period, and the next reader in line has a chance to borrow it.

That's just how it works in a "normal" library so why would it be any different? Sure, DRM is bad and all that but if they would just give books out for free indefinitely it wouldn't be considered a library where you have access to a certain number of titles for a period of time.

It's either these books not being available for online lending at all or within the same constrains as a "real" library just easy and online. What's bad about that?

> That's just how it works in a "normal" library so why would it be any different?

Because these are not physical books. You can give access to them to as many people as you want at the same time.

That not unlimited people can rent the same title at the same time is probably a licensing issue (as they only purchases x copies for lending).

The DRM in this case is mostly about the time limit on the rental though. If you would get access to the title indefinitely it would be giving away not renting?

The whole project is about preserving information for current and future generations, so what place does limiting the availability of it have in history? It’s more likely it’ll just be lost due to DRM when no one can figure it out in the future. It’s the digital equivalent of losing the books, though due to someone being more concerned about their pocket book today than for future generations.

Would you prefer that the Internet Archive not make these books available at all? That was likely the alternative possibility.

I assume that the Internet Archive is holding onto the original, DRM-Free master copies. That's a job I trust the Internet Archive with, even if ideally I wish the data was more distributed.

I would actually, because it sets a bar that if you’d like your book to be preserved then you need to make a choice, is your book so valuable that it should be free? If not, there’s plenty of other places for DRM books. What they’re doing instead is trying to have it both ways.

They are having it both ways. A non-encrypted copy is preserved digitally within the Internet Archive, and that copy is made available, now, in the only way it legally can be. Once that copyright expires, the Archive can make the content freely available to all, having already been digitized.

In some cases the content doesn't belong to the person restricting it however, they're effectively copyrighting the digital medium, do you think that's right for them to DRM it?

e.g. clearly the authors of these texts aren't around any more: http://blog.archive.org/2018/10/04/worlds-largest-collection...

> In some cases the content doesn't belong to the person restricting it however, they're effectively copyrighting the digital medium, do you think that's right for them to DRM it?

No, I don't think it's right for a separate entity to usurp this kind of authority, but that's not really a battle the Internet Archive can win.

They are doing their best within the restrictions placed on them. If you'd like to lobby for more sane copyright laws, please go ahead, I'll be behind you 100%. That does not negate the good being done by the Internet Archive right now.

It's not copyright law or authority, the Internet Archive can just say no. They can't be forced to take material.

I don't even consider DRM to be "bad" when it's clear that the purchase (or free service?) is rental-only.

I dislike DRM because I don't want to loose access to my content if I switch platforms, or servers go down, or I'm away from internet. If I'm renting something for a couple weeks, none of these problems really apply.

(Yes, you could argue that legally all digital purchases are "rentals", but that's not how most products are portrayed to consumers, and the prices in use are higher than what I expect a rental to cost.)

Yeah, it's standard if annoying for libraries. The alternative is either not making it available at all, or going full scihub and trying to stay ahead of law enforcement pulling your domains.

The legal framework here appears to be quite complex. A bunch of specific detail: https://controlleddigitallending.org/whitepaper

And some notes on Controlled Digital Lending from the Internet Archive that clarify how they want to use the legal framework -- specifically, to connect patrons everywhere with libraries everywhere so if a copy exists which is available for loan, it can be loaned out: https://blog.archive.org/2018/11/13/wasted-a-case-study-for-...

I was going to donate, but now knowing that some of those donations will be used to pay publishers that support DRM, I will not.

The donations are not used to pay publishers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com