4 ms·

It's ending its unlimited free books program, and going back to the old version, which is limited.

by ikeboy 6y ago

jawns 6y ago
To be more precise, it is returning to Controlled Digital Lending https://controlleddigitallending.org https://controlleddigitallending.org, where it lends out one digital copy for each physical copy it has purchased or acquired. CDL is unlikely to face major legal challenges, because it's effectively lending the digital copies exactly as if they were print copies. The issue that caused all the outrage was the National Emergency Library program, where the Internet Archive was simultaneously lending out an unlimited number of digital copies of a book, regardless of whether it only possessed one physical copy. This is (on its face) a violation of copyright. Under the first-sale doctrine, you're free to lend out a copy you've purchased. But you aren't free to make unlimited copies of a copy you've purchased and lend them out.
- jrochkind1 6y ago
  The publisher's believe the CDL is illegal too, and are suing on this basis too. From the article: > The lawsuit, filed June 1, does not just object to the National Emergency Library but to the way Internet Archive has long operated. Traditional libraries pay publishers licensing fees, and agree to terms that restrict how many times they can lend an e-book. Internet Archive, by contrast, takes books that have been donated or purchased, scans them and posts them online.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - jawns 6y ago
    I am an author, and three of my books were published by one of the Big Four publishers who are suing the Internet Archive. I fully support the publishers' complaint against the National Emergency Library program. Lending out more copies than you own is the same as making unauthorized copies of copyrighted works, and it should be stopped. But I do not share their opposition to Controlled Digital Lending. I think it is a reasonable system of lending that attempts to achieve parity with lending of physical copies, and I think it has a good chance of being defensible in court. Of course, I know why these publishers oppose CDL. E-book licensing is an income stream they don't want to dry up. And it's quite possible that losing that income stream might mean that they will need to make cutbacks or reduce the number of titles they publish, which could be bad for authors. But I can't see how CDL can be a violation of copyright when lending physical copies under the same terms is not.
- zozbot234 6y ago
  The NEL was still operating under the model of Controlled Digital Lending. The only restriction that was removed was multiple users accessing the same book; each user was still limited to a DRM-enforced lending period, and could only be borrowing a few books from the Archive at any given time.
  - cygx 6y ago
    Only loaning simultaniously the number of copies you have in your possession is part of the CDL model, so no, they were not. Cf https://controlleddigitallending.org/statement https://controlleddigitallending.org/statement Properly implemented, CDL enables a library to circulate a digitized title in place of a physical one in a controlled manner. Under this approach, a library may only loan simultaneously the number of copies that it has legitimately acquired, usually through purchase or donation. For example, if a library owns three copies of a title and digitizes one copy, it may use CDL to circulate one digital copy and two print, or three digital copies, or two digital copies and one print [...]
- cygx 6y ago
  The issue that caused all the outrage was the National Emergency Library program Not really: Publishers oppose controlled digital lending as well. The Emergency Library just painted a bigger target on the Internet Archive's back due to its more obviously questionable legality.
  - sp332 6y ago
    They may "oppose" it, but I don't think they've challenged its fair use status in court before?
    - cygx 6y ago
      Not as far as I'm aware, but they're doing so now. Who knows why they have waited so long, though one can speculate (eg. CDL might not have had enough momentum to be a real threat before, the Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc. appeal was only ruled on in Dec 2018, ...)
- entangledqubit 6y ago
  NEL aside, for CDL I'm curious what the bar is for possession. Could we have a community distributed library where people with purchased books can "give" their books sitting on their bookshelves to a CDL program but not have to physically ship anything? The donor then promises to check if their book is in use before cracking it open. Most of the time my books aren't being read anyway...
  - elliekelly 6y ago
    And it seems like a distinction without a difference. If the Internet Archive is lending out ten scanned copies of a book who knows whether they own one physical copy of the book or ten? Are they scanning each (virtually identical) copy individually?
FlyMoreRockets 6y ago
I wouldn't have minded the old version, except I could never get the DRM to play nicely with Linux.
- ikeboy 6y ago
  Works fine in a browser. Otherwise, I've successfully ran Adobe digital editions in Wine. You can strip the DRM with DeDRM and calibre.

It's ending its unlimited free books program, and going back to the old version, which is limited.

by ikeboy 6y ago

It's ending its unlimited free books program, and going back to the old version, which is limited.

To be more precise, it is returning to Controlled Digital Lending https://controlleddigitallending.org https://controlleddigitallending.org, where it lends out one digital copy for each physical copy it has purchased or acquired. CDL is unlikely to face major legal challenges, because it's effectively lending the digital copies exactly as if they were print copies. The issue that caused all the outrage was the National Emergency Library program, where the Internet Archive was simultaneously lending out an unlimited number of digital copies of a book, regardless of whether it only possessed one physical copy. This is (on its face) a violation of copyright. Under the first-sale doctrine, you're free to lend out a copy you've purchased. But you aren't free to make unlimited copies of a copy you've purchased and lend them out.

jrochkind1 6y ago
The publisher's believe the CDL is illegal too, and are suing on this basis too. From the article: > The lawsuit, filed June 1, does not just object to the National Emergency Library but to the way Internet Archive has long operated. Traditional libraries pay publishers licensing fees, and agree to terms that restrict how many times they can lend an e-book. Internet Archive, by contrast, takes books that have been donated or purchased, scans them and posts them online.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jawns 6y ago
  I am an author, and three of my books were published by one of the Big Four publishers who are suing the Internet Archive. I fully support the publishers' complaint against the National Emergency Library program. Lending out more copies than you own is the same as making unauthorized copies of copyrighted works, and it should be stopped. But I do not share their opposition to Controlled Digital Lending. I think it is a reasonable system of lending that attempts to achieve parity with lending of physical copies, and I think it has a good chance of being defensible in court. Of course, I know why these publishers oppose CDL. E-book licensing is an income stream they don't want to dry up. And it's quite possible that losing that income stream might mean that they will need to make cutbacks or reduce the number of titles they publish, which could be bad for authors. But I can't see how CDL can be a violation of copyright when lending physical copies under the same terms is not.
zozbot234 6y ago
The NEL was still operating under the model of Controlled Digital Lending. The only restriction that was removed was multiple users accessing the same book; each user was still limited to a DRM-enforced lending period, and could only be borrowing a few books from the Archive at any given time.
- cygx 6y ago
  Only loaning simultaniously the number of copies you have in your possession is part of the CDL model, so no, they were not. Cf https://controlleddigitallending.org/statement https://controlleddigitallending.org/statement Properly implemented, CDL enables a library to circulate a digitized title in place of a physical one in a controlled manner. Under this approach, a library may only loan simultaneously the number of copies that it has legitimately acquired, usually through purchase or donation. For example, if a library owns three copies of a title and digitizes one copy, it may use CDL to circulate one digital copy and two print, or three digital copies, or two digital copies and one print [...]
cygx 6y ago
The issue that caused all the outrage was the National Emergency Library program Not really: Publishers oppose controlled digital lending as well. The Emergency Library just painted a bigger target on the Internet Archive's back due to its more obviously questionable legality.
- sp332 6y ago
  They may "oppose" it, but I don't think they've challenged its fair use status in court before?
  - cygx 6y ago
    Not as far as I'm aware, but they're doing so now. Who knows why they have waited so long, though one can speculate (eg. CDL might not have had enough momentum to be a real threat before, the Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc. appeal was only ruled on in Dec 2018, ...)
entangledqubit 6y ago
NEL aside, for CDL I'm curious what the bar is for possession. Could we have a community distributed library where people with purchased books can "give" their books sitting on their bookshelves to a CDL program but not have to physically ship anything? The donor then promises to check if their book is in use before cracking it open. Most of the time my books aren't being read anyway...
- elliekelly 6y ago
  And it seems like a distinction without a difference. If the Internet Archive is lending out ten scanned copies of a book who knows whether they own one physical copy of the book or ten? Are they scanning each (virtually identical) copy individually?

FlyMoreRockets 6y ago

I wouldn't have minded the old version, except I could never get the DRM to play nicely with Linux.

ikeboy 6y ago
Works fine in a browser. Otherwise, I've successfully ran Adobe digital editions in Wine. You can strip the DRM with DeDRM and calibre.