This morning, I wandered over to the Sci-Fi and Fantasy Stack Exchange site to post a question, as below:
In which universe does a facility only exist if someone wants to use it? If I recall correctly (which I might not), that universe is the one occupied by Pratchett's Discworld and, more specifically, it only applies to the Unseen University in Ankh Morpork (because magic). However, the L-Space entry for UU doesn't make any mention of this phenomenon (at time of writing), which strikes me as an odd omission. I'm not about to pore through books I haven't read in nearly a decade just to find a sentence or two of lore when I can ask people whom may have better memories and resources than I. That's part of why SE exists, IMO.
It's always struck me that the phrase "the gymnasium is there if you want to use it" should logically mean that "it isn't there if you don't (or anybody doesn't) want to use it". However, people look at me blankly if I ask them about that. Maybe it's just a quirk of my software developer mindset that that seems what that peculiar phrasing implies.
gymnasium = new Facility("gymnasium")
developerWantsToUse = manager.askAboutUse(gymnasium)
gymnasium.Exists = developerWantsToUse
Once I was done, I happened to see (and follow) a link to the announcement of this news on the meta site (posted four days ago at time of writing). According to archive.org's blog, the organisation lost a court case regarding draconian licensing of digital copies of books:
"Today’s lower court decision in Hachette v. Internet Archive is a blow to all libraries and the communities we serve. This decision impacts libraries across the US who rely on controlled digital lending to connect their patrons with books online. It hurts authors by saying that unfair licensing models are the only way their books can be read online. And it holds back access to information in the digital age, harming all readers, everywhere."
— OP
As the poster and commenters on SE wrote:
"I do also recognize that the typical library model does assume a limited lifetime for a book (natural wear and tear and all that), necessitating occasionally buying a new copy. I think that some of these companies enact draconian policies regarding how many times a licensed digital work can be loaned out."
"This is absolutely terrible news to hear! A step back in the fight for media preservation …" — Fez
"I've been loosely following this, and the decision is terrible. There are a lot of books on OL that aren't in print anymore, and if you want original versions to compare back to there's practically no other comparable resource. E-book licensing models for libraries are ridiculous; a book can be lent out as few as a dozen times before a new license is required at a cost higher than a printed version."
— David W
Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely this problem could be (at least partially) solved by the use of a decentralised blockchain solution (such as arweave, Filecoin or the now-defunct LBRY)? I guess it won't exist if draconian license issuers don't want it to ...
Thumbnail image copyright archive.org
