An author can tell anyone that. And as long as they still control the rights to their work, they can enforce it. Should you sign your rights over to a publisher, then that becomes the publisher’s prerogative, not yours.
The consensus and case law surrounding traditional libraries. Is that libraries generally still bought physical copies. Even in the age of the e-book today. They still play by publisher rules of artificial scarcity and limited lending. Only lending out for a limited period, the number of licenses they purchased from the publisher.
The Internet archive however, allows everyone to infinitely duplicate items in the archive. Which is great for retention. But as a business model, it sucks. I support the archives mission. But is the archive supporting any of those they archive? And while generally invaluable in a good way. They don’t offer a way to be forgotten for those that do want to be forgotten. Then again neither do most major internet focused entities. Reddit etc undeleting comments their authors deleted for instance.
I really don’t understand how this would work. They can’t do the normal legal nonsense of claiming they are only selling me a license to the book, if they sell a physical copy of the book to me. After they sell me a physical book they cannot prevent me from lending or reselling it.
If authors/publishers could find some way to legally do this they would, I just don’t think they can.
I understand why a library can’t make copies of a book (as far as I understood it the internet archive was “limiting” access to how many copies of a book can be viewed at a time) the copyright protections are clear. But copyright does not cover resale or lending.
Oh then I misunderstood you. Yes, if an author self publishes and sells copies. Their control over said copy largely ends when it leaves their possession. In fact they only maintain one right to it after that point. The copy right. Which unfortunately IA is a bit fast and loose with.
I’m not opposed to “the right to be forgotten” but imo that should apply to private speech, not something posted publicly. If you publish something on the open internet I feel like you’ve given up that right (like an author deciding to give copies of a book to friends vs an author selling a book in stores)
An author can tell anyone that. And as long as they still control the rights to their work, they can enforce it. Should you sign your rights over to a publisher, then that becomes the publisher’s prerogative, not yours.
The consensus and case law surrounding traditional libraries. Is that libraries generally still bought physical copies. Even in the age of the e-book today. They still play by publisher rules of artificial scarcity and limited lending. Only lending out for a limited period, the number of licenses they purchased from the publisher.
The Internet archive however, allows everyone to infinitely duplicate items in the archive. Which is great for retention. But as a business model, it sucks. I support the archives mission. But is the archive supporting any of those they archive? And while generally invaluable in a good way. They don’t offer a way to be forgotten for those that do want to be forgotten. Then again neither do most major internet focused entities. Reddit etc undeleting comments their authors deleted for instance.
I really don’t understand how this would work. They can’t do the normal legal nonsense of claiming they are only selling me a license to the book, if they sell a physical copy of the book to me. After they sell me a physical book they cannot prevent me from lending or reselling it.
If authors/publishers could find some way to legally do this they would, I just don’t think they can.
I understand why a library can’t make copies of a book (as far as I understood it the internet archive was “limiting” access to how many copies of a book can be viewed at a time) the copyright protections are clear. But copyright does not cover resale or lending.
Oh then I misunderstood you. Yes, if an author self publishes and sells copies. Their control over said copy largely ends when it leaves their possession. In fact they only maintain one right to it after that point. The copy right. Which unfortunately IA is a bit fast and loose with.
I’m not opposed to “the right to be forgotten” but imo that should apply to private speech, not something posted publicly. If you publish something on the open internet I feel like you’ve given up that right (like an author deciding to give copies of a book to friends vs an author selling a book in stores)