[thanksforfish]

I'll try a less snarky rebuttal because I think there is a point here.

Why does IA get to make that decision? I get why this has populist support, but that's not an excuse to commit piracy. I get that IA is popular, but I'd also be annoyed if a less popular company did this.

If this was a government level decision to nationalize bookstores, to waive library checkout limits, then I'd understand a little more. But some random company taking copyrighted material they don't own and distributing it without the consent or payment is something very different.

I'd further point out that publishers, copyright holders, etc also need money to operate. I get that they can be less of a sympathetic group than author, but they have rights and they have bills to pay.

Theres lots of public domain books, books from libraries, free online content, etc. Theres no reason we need this sort of piracy to get through the pandemic.

[shakna]

This, is not piracy.

I do understand that it may be instinctual to leap to that position, but it isn't.

Usually, the books that appear on IA appear under the doctrine of "fair use".

However, that doctrine is adaptable to circumstances (which is actually written into the US law that governs fair use). All IA has done here, really, is suspend their waitlists, to make it more fair to the public to be able to read further, for education to continue, within a crisis.

They've also made it very clear that this is temporary. If it wasn't, you might have a case that it isn't fair use.

Part of why this falls under fair use is that their focus is on books that do not have a digital copy, apart from IA's scan, available online. This is specifically something that libraries are granted the ability to do. To scan and upload books that are not yet available.

The books that appear in this collection have been donated. However, if an authour wishes to remove their book, then there is a very simple and effective way available to them. (Linked to from the article) [0]

[0] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QjErbouWG7pUlzcxPcRk4YEt...

[thanksforfish]

> actually written into the US law

Reference?

[shakna]

There are four considerations for fair use, the 1st, and 4th, both rely on the current context, and allow for different interpretations based on the current climate.

> 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

The purpose, in this case, is nonprofit educational purposes during a crisis. Such a purpose is generally looked upon more favourably, as it is presented as a humanitarian gesture in a time of crisis.

> 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

During a crisis, a temporary, and very clearly temporary and short-term, effort is unlikely to have an effect on the potential value of a copyrighted work.

As IA have aimed this collection at education it's probably also worth including:

> such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means ... teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

[0] All quotes come from Section 107, of the US Copyright Code.