From: Ibrahim Farah <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 07:56:27 +0000

Dear Jim, you tackled the core of the problem. While we are discussing
narrow terms of licenses, we drifted away from the principle of owning a
copy for cultural preservation and that this exact copy will enter the
public domain. In the growing world of born-digital, libraries do not own
the copy. I think that the licensing scheme for libraries is not working.
We should have a scheme similar to the print world where publishers issue a
specific number of digital copies with unique serial numbers. Once the
library purchases a copy it should own it, lend it, and apply the first
sale doctrine to it. This copy will also enter the public domain after a
while. Licensing can work fine for individuals, but not for libraries that
have the duty of protecting cultural heritage and making sure that future
generations have access to it.

Ibrahim Farah
University of Balamand
Lebanon

------------------------------
From: Maria Bustillos <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 12:01:27 +0000

SO well said, Jim. What a spectacular note, thank you.

Some positive steps for the 'civilizational strategy' you propose might
include

   - publicly-funded repositories for born-digital works written (and
   curated) by human beings, for permanent purchase by libraries
   - clearly codified terms for the purchase (and reversion!) of rights for
   publishers, distributors and rights holders, so people understand what
   they're signing
   - a rock-solid means of ensuring that current library rights (including
   the right of first sale) are preserved for digital works

I hope there may yet be a way to rescue much of the 20th century from
oblivion. For now, there are a lot of writers out here who, like me, are
way more interested in cultural posterity and the future of libraries than
we are in maximizing our own royalties. My colleagues and I are working
right now to ensure that authors and other rights holders like ourselves
will be able to *choose* to sell permanent copies of our digital works to
libraries, where they can be loaned out to patrons in the traditional way.

best to all

Maria

Founding editor, Flaming Hydra <https://flaminghydra.com>, Popula
<http://www.popula.com> and The Brick House <https://thebrick.house>
on Mastodon @[log in to unmask]
mariabustillos.com
she/her/hers

On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 3:05 AM LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: "Jim O'Donnell" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2024 17:24:14 -0700

The case of Hachette et al. v. Internet Archive lumbers on.  It is mostly
impossible to comment on this case without getting into the partisan weeds,
and not much point to doing that.  This is the kind of case that will have
its life independent of what the enlightened general reader thinks or
expects and will end where it ends.  For the latest:

https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/publisher-news/article/94607-aap-files-brief-opposing-internet-archive-s-bid-to-appeal-ruling-in-infringement-suit.html

But I will allow myself what feels like a non-partisan set of
observations.

1.  The future of intellectual property is bound up with accessibility,
use, and reuse.  A book or article that is not accessible in the space of
intelligent consumption -- a digitally dominated space -- will disappear
forever, like an ancient poet who never managed to get copied into the
newfangled codex technology and lies today in the sands of Egypt hoping,
for the most part in vain, that some archaeologist may yet dig up his
papyrus roll.  When (not if) humankind outsources much of what we now call
reading to bots and agents and other Ai interventions yet unborn, the
inaccessible intellectual object will simply no longer have a meaningful
existence.

2.  It is equally unmistakable that we do not yet have a civilizational
strategy for rescuing much of our heritage from inaccessibility.  A book
that has not entered the public domain depends utterly for its future on
the wishes of the owner of its copyright and the owner's ability to find a
medium of dissemination that suits their needs.  Many such books are
trapped in the estates of dead authors who have no resourceful heirs to
ensure propagation of the work.  That way lies oblivion.

How shall we rescue our past, that is ourselves, from this dilemma?
Controlled digital lending has been introduced as one hypothetical path
forward, with many advantages and of course disadvantages.  If the only
reasonable reaction to its strategy is outraged suppressive litigation,
then the only reasonable question to ask of the outraged parties is:  so
what do we do instead?  How do we rescue the past?  I may have missed
something, of course, but I've not yet heard a coherent and realistic
answer to that question.

Jim O'Donnell
ASU