25 ms·

> If you steal from someone for years without being caught Wait, what? Who said anything about stealing? Publishers might try to argue piracy but CDL doesn't s

by Reelin 6y ago

> If you steal from someone for years without being caught Wait, what? Who said anything about stealing? Publishers might try to argue piracy but CDL doesn't seem to fit that either on account of the DRM. Honestly I'm not at all clear what a cohesive argument against CDL would look like. Given the first sale doctrine it wouldn't even surprise me if some of the current ebook pricing practices were actually illegal.

nordsieck 6y ago
> Honestly I'm not at all clear what a cohesive argument against CDL would look like. The argument is simple. Copyright allows the copyright holder to enjoin anyone else from making a copy of a work - including a digital copy. Essentially all software works by making copies of data that is uses. The first sale doctrine doesn't apply (IMO) because it sets limitations on the rights of a copyright holder to a particular copy of a work after it has been sold. Each "loan" of an ebook is a fresh copy. If you look at the Controlled Digital Lending website[1], they pin most of the legal legitimacy on fair use, not first sale doctrine, which I think is probably much more solid legal footing. ___ 1. https://controlleddigitallending.org/ https://controlleddigitallending.org/
- Reelin 6y ago
  I'll agree that your interpretation is the correct one if everything is taken completely literally. That being said, it seems like the ultimate end run around otherwise well established law surrounding books. As you noted essentially all software works in this way. Throwing out all established laws and end user rights "because digital" hardly seems reasonable to me. How does such a line of argument square with the fact that even making personal use of a digital item inevitably involves multiple copy operations on a local device in the best case? Even moving it between two partitions on the same device involves copying it. (I suppose I should just be grateful that the digital overlords saw fit to grant me permission to move things between logical volumes. /s)
  - nordsieck 6y ago
    > How does such a line of argument square with the fact that even making personal use of a digital item inevitably involves multiple copy operations on a local device in the best case? Even moving it between two partitions on the same device involves copying it. Most digital goods are "sold" as a copyright license.
- starfallg 6y ago
  There is a strong argument that the first sale doctrine should be applied to the license granting the use of digital goods rather than the actual copy (which is undecipherable in its physical form to us anyway and require a lot of additional copying within a computer to produce the pulses of light that we can read, for example). The license is the meaningful legal construct in which the content is accessed. The EU has already done this since the ECJ ruling in 2012, and the US is behind the curve.

by Reelin 6y ago

nordsieck 6y ago

> Honestly I'm not at all clear what a cohesive argument against CDL would look like. The argument is simple. Copyright allows the copyright holder to enjoin anyone else from making a copy of a work - including a digital copy. Essentially all software works by making copies of data that is uses. The first sale doctrine doesn't apply (IMO) because it sets limitations on the rights of a copyright holder to a particular copy of a work after it has been sold. Each "loan" of an ebook is a fresh copy. If you look at the Controlled Digital Lending website[1], they pin most of the legal legitimacy on fair use, not first sale doctrine, which I think is probably much more solid legal footing. ___ 1. https://controlleddigitallending.org/ https://controlleddigitallending.org/

Reelin 6y ago
I'll agree that your interpretation is the correct one if everything is taken completely literally. That being said, it seems like the ultimate end run around otherwise well established law surrounding books. As you noted essentially all software works in this way. Throwing out all established laws and end user rights "because digital" hardly seems reasonable to me. How does such a line of argument square with the fact that even making personal use of a digital item inevitably involves multiple copy operations on a local device in the best case? Even moving it between two partitions on the same device involves copying it. (I suppose I should just be grateful that the digital overlords saw fit to grant me permission to move things between logical volumes. /s)
- nordsieck 6y ago
  > How does such a line of argument square with the fact that even making personal use of a digital item inevitably involves multiple copy operations on a local device in the best case? Even moving it between two partitions on the same device involves copying it. Most digital goods are "sold" as a copyright license.
starfallg 6y ago
There is a strong argument that the first sale doctrine should be applied to the license granting the use of digital goods rather than the actual copy (which is undecipherable in its physical form to us anyway and require a lot of additional copying within a computer to produce the pulses of light that we can read, for example). The license is the meaningful legal construct in which the content is accessed. The EU has already done this since the ECJ ruling in 2012, and the US is behind the curve.