4 ms·

IA will lose because the precedent set by winning would mean that all online digital sales can just be distributed. Itd evaporate a trillion dollar market overn

IA will lose because the precedent set by winning would mean that all online digital sales can just be distributed. Itd evaporate a trillion dollar market overnight. I disagree with book publishers and general copyright law, but judges can understand the difference between physical books and digital ones. Physical books cannot be outright copied atom for atom in 5 milliseconds and distributed to millions in hours. The difficulty of any sort of copying makes it significantly economical to just buy a new one, or have one lended that had to be bought. I'm afraid IA is going to be demolished because of their move here. They shouldn't have done it under the banner of IA. If at all they should have done it under a rogue name and service over TOR.

mjevans 6y ago
The First Sale doctrine SHOULD apply, As someone else replied in a sibling comment. A digital sale should be just that, a perpetual license that can be transferred, inherited, etc.
- Mindwipe 6y ago
  > A digital sale should be just that, a perpetual license that can be transferred, inherited, etc. Even if that was the case (which it isn't) then the IA would still lose this case.
- wittyreference 6y ago
  First Sale doctrine evenly applied to digital books would allow you to freely resell the ebook you purchased. It probably wouldn't mean allowing you to make infinite copies and distribute them freely, abolishing the market for the actual book. Yes, that's not the technical definition of FS doctrine, but that doctrine was written before this technological context existed.
  - rocqua 6y ago
    Thing is, the IA did not make infinite copies and distribute them freely. They specifically made limited copies and for every copy the lent out, they took a physical copy out of circulation.
    - wittyreference 6y ago
      I don't see anything in IA's FAQ or elsewhere that they limited digital lending to physical copies. I read that they only lent ebooks they had physical possession /of/, but that there was no limit to how many such copies they lent out (i.e., they had one physical copy of Mark Twain, allowed an unlimited number of people to digitally borrow Mark Twain for up to two weeks). If I'm mistaken, I'd appreciate a link that explains their approach.
      - supermatt 6y ago
        They say in the article that they used controlled digital lending, where they only circulate the EXACT number of copies they (and partner libraries) physically own and are not currently lent.
        wittyreference 6y ago
        They only did controlled digital lending before (and after) they pulled the National Emergency Library stunt that got them sued. Here's the link to their FAQ: https://help.archive.org/hc/en-us/articles/360042654251-National-Emergency-Library-FAQs#h_6cf3779f-5a98-4956-8cc4-2352f42fa34c https://help.archive.org/hc/en-us/articles/360042654251-Nati... To quote: Is this controlled digital lending? No. It is close to controlled digital lending but is significantly different while waitlists are suspended. This library is being mobilized in response to a global pandemic and US national emergency. It shares aspects of controlled digital lending by controlling the physical book that was scanned and the redistribution of files through digital rights management software, but differs by having no waitlists for users borrowing books. Once the US national emergency is over and waitlists are back to their normal capacity, the service will return to full controlled digital lending.
        supermatt 6y ago
        Yeah, I see what you mean - the posted article is definitely misleading in that case. What an idiotic thing to do.
        6y ago
- devwastaken 6y ago
  I don't think this is the kind of result anyone wants. Even if you do get a ruling that ignores license agreements and says first sale applies to infinetely copiable and distributable content - it'll give every monetary incentive from the copyright overlords to bankroll Congress into further archaic laws. There's every good argument to be made that digital is not the same as physical, and thatll result in more terrible laws.

mjevans 6y ago

The First Sale doctrine SHOULD apply, As someone else replied in a sibling comment. A digital sale should be just that, a perpetual license that can be transferred, inherited, etc.

Mindwipe 6y ago
> A digital sale should be just that, a perpetual license that can be transferred, inherited, etc. Even if that was the case (which it isn't) then the IA would still lose this case.
wittyreference 6y ago
First Sale doctrine evenly applied to digital books would allow you to freely resell the ebook you purchased. It probably wouldn't mean allowing you to make infinite copies and distribute them freely, abolishing the market for the actual book. Yes, that's not the technical definition of FS doctrine, but that doctrine was written before this technological context existed.
- rocqua 6y ago
  Thing is, the IA did not make infinite copies and distribute them freely. They specifically made limited copies and for every copy the lent out, they took a physical copy out of circulation.
  - wittyreference 6y ago
    I don't see anything in IA's FAQ or elsewhere that they limited digital lending to physical copies. I read that they only lent ebooks they had physical possession /of/, but that there was no limit to how many such copies they lent out (i.e., they had one physical copy of Mark Twain, allowed an unlimited number of people to digitally borrow Mark Twain for up to two weeks). If I'm mistaken, I'd appreciate a link that explains their approach.
    - supermatt 6y ago
      They say in the article that they used controlled digital lending, where they only circulate the EXACT number of copies they (and partner libraries) physically own and are not currently lent.
      - wittyreference 6y ago
        They only did controlled digital lending before (and after) they pulled the National Emergency Library stunt that got them sued. Here's the link to their FAQ: https://help.archive.org/hc/en-us/articles/360042654251-National-Emergency-Library-FAQs#h_6cf3779f-5a98-4956-8cc4-2352f42fa34c https://help.archive.org/hc/en-us/articles/360042654251-Nati... To quote: Is this controlled digital lending? No. It is close to controlled digital lending but is significantly different while waitlists are suspended. This library is being mobilized in response to a global pandemic and US national emergency. It shares aspects of controlled digital lending by controlling the physical book that was scanned and the redistribution of files through digital rights management software, but differs by having no waitlists for users borrowing books. Once the US national emergency is over and waitlists are back to their normal capacity, the service will return to full controlled digital lending.
        supermatt 6y ago
        Yeah, I see what you mean - the posted article is definitely misleading in that case. What an idiotic thing to do.
      - 6y ago
devwastaken 6y ago
I don't think this is the kind of result anyone wants. Even if you do get a ruling that ignores license agreements and says first sale applies to infinetely copiable and distributable content - it'll give every monetary incentive from the copyright overlords to bankroll Congress into further archaic laws. There's every good argument to be made that digital is not the same as physical, and thatll result in more terrible laws.