Sizzle Then Fizzle: Buzzy Titles and Borrowing Digitized Books
blog.archive.org
blog.archive.org
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.
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
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.
Based on your profile it appears you’re an author; you benefit from the vast overreach that is today’s copyright statute.
Would authors take so much issue with the Archive's Emergency Library effort if code was written so every public library could delegate their "copies" of books to the Internet Archive, so that demand could be programmatically and dynamically allocated (think shuffling software licensing around in a large enterprise)? Or would they be dismayed to find that there were enough copies in the national library system to meet peak demand?
The longer conversation is that the mechanisms by which we compensate those who contribute to culture (like writers, or pennies per song stream on Spotify) is fundamentally broken. This is one of the symptoms.
Disclaimer: I have no affiliation with the Internet Archive besides being a recurring donor, but I do take it upon myself to vigorously defend public goods.
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.
> 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...
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.
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.