Public libraries started appearing in the mid-1800s. At the time, publishers went absolutely berserk: they had been lobbying for the lending of books to become illegal, as reading a book without paying anything first was “stealing”, they argued. As a consequence, they considered private libraries at the time to be hotbeds of crime and robbery. (Those libraries were so-called “subscription libraries”, so they were argued to be for-profit, too.)

British Parliament at the time, unlike today’s politicians, wisely disagreed with the publishing industry lobby – the copyright industry of the time. Instead, they saw the economic value in an educated and cultural populace, and passed a law allowing free public libraries in 1850, so that local libraries were built throughout Britain, where the public could take part of knowledge and culture for free.

[–] density@kbin.social 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)

In the US context, the founding of public libraries were most famously and substantially supported by Carnegie. A man of "crime and robbery" if there ever was one. When you hear "philanthropist" think "tax evasion". Not to mention how he came into possession of all that loot in the first place.

I agree with the author's point broadly but it's not well made.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 4 points 10 months ago

He gave grants around the world. The library in my small UK town was funded by him nearly a hundred years ago.

[–] buckykat@hexbear.net 34 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The publishers are not against libraries per se

doubt

[–] wagesj45@kbin.social 31 points 10 months ago

If they could force you to pay a royalty every time you so much as thought of a book you once read, they'd do it in a heartbeat.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 28 points 10 months ago

The public has been forgotten in our intellectual property system. The intent of copyright and patents in the US Constitution is to develop a robust public domain, but it's taken this long for Steamboat Willie (Mickey Mouse, 1928) to finally be free to use. (I say that as if nothing is going to stop it before January 1st, 2024).

Copyright is rent-seeking. It's worse than theft. Its closer to extortion. But because it is done by the owner class, it is condoned or celebrated by the state. A state that has forgotten its people.

[–] beto@lemmy.studio 12 points 10 months ago

Staying true to the centuries-old library concept, only one patron at a time can rent a digital copy of a physical book for a limited period.

So sad that we solved the problem of knowledge scarcity, and because of greed we need to add it back artificially.

[+] TWeaK@lemm.ee -31 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Staying true to the centuries-old library concept, only one patron at a time can rent a digital copy of a physical book for a limited period.

This is misleading. IA had a restriction of one digital copy per real copy scanned, however they removed this restriction during covid - and that was when the publishers sued.

End of the day, IA tried to test the limits of them and ended up having them defined better in favour of the publishers. They paint themselves as the victim, but actually it's their actions that made things worse. Hopefully they'll straighten things out a bit in the appeal, but IA only have themselves to blame here.

[–] 68x@lemmy.world 17 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

I don’t know dude. I think the publishers here are in the wrong too.

IA does a lot more than being a library and this lawsuit will probably crush them. For the big publishers, the lent files are probably a fraction of a fraction of a percentage for their business.

IA also archives a lot of data, including hard to find books, websites, trailers, etc. I don’t think anyone else will step up to replace them.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Publishers absolutely were in the wrong, morally, but my point is that IA stepped out of the legal grey area and into what was completely wrong in law. Then, they (and apparently their argument still does) rely on a judge basically making the law up, and in doing so left no real option for the judge but to rule against them. Now, the grey area isn't grey anymore, it's explicitly prohibited.

If IA hadn't broken the one digital per physical copy rule, or if they'd settled out of court or done anything sensible with their lawsuit, they wouldn't have made the law worse.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social -2 points 10 months ago

In the wrong how?

If you don't believe in copyright, whatever, but IA was doing something blatantly violating the law and getting away with it until they decided to flamboyantly draw attention to themselves by removing the veneer of legality and just giving away unlimited copies.

[–] _number8_@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

well it's a bullshit fake restriction that has zero need to exist beyond greed. very cool of them to try to get something going.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee -3 points 10 months ago

It is a bullshit fake restriction because it doesn't even exist. However, it's something of a grey area that, up until IA poked the hornets nest, allowed a bit of wiggle room to get away with breaking copyright law.

Now a judge has ruled that managing one digital copy per physical copy is explicitly against the law as written. They aren't even trying any sort of fair use argument, they're basically just saying "we do public good" but don't actually explain how that means anything in law.

Meanwhile, the lawyers get paid, and IA goes on fundraising campaigns.