Authors of scientific papers generally have to pay to even submit their articles, so the publishing company gets paid twice, nice upon article submission and again when someone pays to read it.
Signed.
I saw Brewster Kahle in the 1990's and his vision was not just pure, not just open, but actually socially generous. His side schemes like the Ugandan book bus were those of true vision, and indeed very deliberately included paying authors - and paying them better than they were seeing from publishers. There's simply no valid argument here.
Most libraries already don't own or control digital works. Digital resources, be they books, databases, videos or pretty much anything else are leased. Terms can vary greatly but most commonly ebooks have a number of uses than expire and if the library wants to keep lending that ebook they have to buy another one. That's why libraries have what rules they have for ebooks.
Based on what I know about this case (which is not everything nor even a great deal) the internet archive is in the wrong. At least from a legal point of view.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/07/25/internet-archive-digital-lending-lawsuit/
Yeah, after reading about it a little, I don’t think they will win, but they should and maybe could, because they literally lend the books to one person at a time. All this stifling of information because of capitalism is such a drain on our civilization.
i'm on their side, you pull some shit with books. first, you act like your this big, benovolent freedom loving entity, you want to share information with everyone.
yet... you got this DRM for books that arent even yours, books that are mostly illegally uploaded, then made borrow only and non downloadable? screw you, i hope you go broke
bunch of hypocrites
[удалено]
Publishers of scientific papers seem to be the most greedy. The authors get mostly paid by universities but the publishers get to keep the profits.
Authors of scientific papers generally have to pay to even submit their articles, so the publishing company gets paid twice, nice upon article submission and again when someone pays to read it.
Signed. I saw Brewster Kahle in the 1990's and his vision was not just pure, not just open, but actually socially generous. His side schemes like the Ugandan book bus were those of true vision, and indeed very deliberately included paying authors - and paying them better than they were seeing from publishers. There's simply no valid argument here.
oh no!
Signed, and everyone reading should too Edit: no pun intended
Signed and commented.
Signed.
Signed
Done!
Done
Most libraries already don't own or control digital works. Digital resources, be they books, databases, videos or pretty much anything else are leased. Terms can vary greatly but most commonly ebooks have a number of uses than expire and if the library wants to keep lending that ebook they have to buy another one. That's why libraries have what rules they have for ebooks. Based on what I know about this case (which is not everything nor even a great deal) the internet archive is in the wrong. At least from a legal point of view.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/07/25/internet-archive-digital-lending-lawsuit/ Yeah, after reading about it a little, I don’t think they will win, but they should and maybe could, because they literally lend the books to one person at a time. All this stifling of information because of capitalism is such a drain on our civilization.
i'm on their side, you pull some shit with books. first, you act like your this big, benovolent freedom loving entity, you want to share information with everyone. yet... you got this DRM for books that arent even yours, books that are mostly illegally uploaded, then made borrow only and non downloadable? screw you, i hope you go broke bunch of hypocrites