Because they got threatened with a billion dollar lawsuit, that's why
This is far, far better than that invaluable resource being shut down entirely
Dude- when the internet was only a few pages, the Library of Congress website used to shut down outside of business hours. It was the funniest shit. So who knows- there’s probably some old biddie who thinks they own x-copies of a digital book somewhere on a digital bookshelf.
... there are. Have you never heard of DRM? Kindle and other e-Reader platforms, digital content for libraries, textbook portals, etc. You stupid?
Because you can't infinitely create copyrights.
Older books that are out of copyright can be digitally copied unlimited times.
Without copyrights, why would anybody write anything meaningful and time consuming (like a novel)? Everything will just be shitty 300 word blog posts.
Faggot. Suck the big government teat because before government nobody ever made anything. .
Interesting… I did not know that the Mises Institute was primarily against copyrights. Thank you for the link.
His complaint, I think, is about having to borrow books that are in the public domain.
What do you think about Warner/Chapel suing thousands of people for the use of the birthday song? Or Walmart suing over the yellow happy face?
As despicable as the American brand called themselves Ugg© then promptly tried to sue everyone who makes ugg boots.
Oooh. If I create a shoe brand called Sneaker can I sue Nike and everyone else? *intense hand rubbing *
Because you can't infinitely create copyrights.
Yes. Yes you can. (((copyright))) is just a jew idea that an idea can be owned.
Without copyrights, why would anybody write anything meaningful and time consuming (like a novel)? Everything will just be shitty 300 word blog posts.
Then how the fuck did humanity operate for the thousands of years before (((copyright)))? Oh. Wait, they had far more creativity because ideas were shared.
People don't get inspired to write a novel from the money.
We don't? Have you written a novel?
Homer didn't copyright the Iliad Steven King copyrighted every single thing he wrote
Which is better?
You're committing a genetic fallacy. The Illiad survived to this time because it was one of the best writings from that ancient period.
Making such a comparison is about as useful as comparing Arcangelo Corelli to Britney Spears.
Instead, let's take the very best writing from this era and compare it to the very best rating of that era, volumetrically. Self interest motivates people to write, and so instead of having one great piece of work in 500 years we have tens of thousands per year. Now, is most of what's written trash? Sure. But that's because we're swimming in a sea of content. Whatever survives this era and his remembered later, aside from the artificially boosted trash, will surely be of great quality.
Also, I mean what's to stop somebody from writing something great and putting it into the public domain? Unless you're trying to compel others to give you stuff for free, I don't really understand the argument… It's not like copyright rules prevent you from giving away your work for free. Perhaps copyrights should be reduced in length, and certainly they should not be extended for the benefit of one corporation (like was the case for Disney). But getting rid of copyrights all together would just reduce the amount of written content to cheaply produced trash in the odd masterpiece Also, I mean what's to stop somebody from writing something great and putting it into the public domain? Unless you're trying to compel others to give you stuff for free, I don't really understand the argument… It's not like copyright rules prevent you from giving away your work for free. Perhaps copyrights should be reduced in length, and certainly they should not be extended for the benefit of one corporation (like was the case for Disney). But getting rid of copyrights all together would just reduce the amount of written content to mostly cheaply produced trash and then the odd masterpiece.
The imaginary property rights-holder wants to get paid based on how popular something is. by requiring payment for how many can be "checked" out at a time.
It is because "copyright". It is not hard to get funding without copyrights as can be observed by different fund me websites. However the government can censor you by claiming you violated copyrights. The upload filters EU wants to introduce aims to ban the political opposition, stupid people still believe coprigths are there to make money.
You can use it as much as you want, you just can’t own it. And they don’t own it enough to allow you to have the rights to own it.
This strangely makes sense.
They do it at the library too.
I thought I was the only one who wondered this.
Was either this or close a very useful site down. The (((book publishers))) were threatening them for sharing current publications still under copyright.
One of the major reasons is if they need to change or edit the book they can do so without having to seek out all the printed versions.
If I sign up with archive.org and borrow a book, do I get to keep that book and use it forever? Or does it self destruct or lock up after a couple of weeks? Can I make copies of a book I borrow?
You can't download a copy of it as far as I know.
Bs. If you're looking at it on your computer, you can download it. Its just a matter of how to save it in an accessible manner. Like ripping vids off youtube.
Yep. Time to become a Aaron Swartz.
Some of the books I was trying to access had no decent way to rip a copy for offline.
I ask because I've only ever downloaded books on public domain -- I haven't tried their "borrow"feature yet. So you can just read them on screen in real time? Bummer.
(post is archived)