4 ms·
It probably did, but note that the scope was limited: Books released too recently were excluded (if I remember correctly, the cut-off was 5 years?), and they ar
by cygx 6y ago
It probably did, but note that the scope was limited: Books released too recently were excluded (if I remember correctly, the cut-off was 5 years?), and they are still DRM protected and have to be returned at the end of the 3 month period, when the waitlist will kick in again.
Also note that the publishers' problem is not just the 3 months of waitlist suspension (supposed to offset the closure of physical libraries during the pandemic), but the practice of controlled digital lending of books scanned from physical copies (ie handing out a digital copy for each physical copy you've got sitting on your shelf) without additional royalty payments.
- Mindwipe 6y agoPublishers will also be able to trivially show that the Piracy subreddit found the DRM and geofiltering to be below industry standard and how there were literally thousands of posts there about people downloading books for permanent retention because they could.
- sukilot 6y agoIf I lend you my book and you make a persistent copy, am I the copyright violator?
- drawfloat 6y agoIf you've been warned that what you're doing is enabling others to violate copyright and continue to do so, then in a lot of jurisdictions yes. Same reason torrent trackers keep getting closed down.