5 ms·

If there's no limits on how many copies they would hand out and no limit on how often you can check out the same book, then for practical purposes it's not time

If there's no limits on how many copies they would hand out and no limit on how often you can check out the same book, then for practical purposes it's not time limited.

acqq 6y ago
> no limit on how often you can check out the same book There was always a fixed limit on how long the book remains checked out, and it must have already expired to all that checked it out at that time. The DRM protection remained active. Edit: answering the post below: > They had a limited number of licenses to produce works and they produced more than that. It was at the times that all the physical libraries were closed, one can argue that the demand wasn't bigger than what the public libraries would have been able to handle, and even it had been bigger, it was only because of that exceptional emergency happening. But I agree it would have been much clearer had they made some fixed limits corresponding to the estimated number of the books in the physical libraries.
- Rebelgecko 6y ago
  I don't think the fact that physical libraries are closed is relevant, because they weren't loaning out physical books. They were loaning out ebooks, which many (most? All?) libraries had continued to do, totally unaffected by COVID-19
- Spivak 6y ago
  This really doesn’t matter because the work was duplicated regardless of the fact that it was time limited. They had a limited number of licenses to produce works and they produced more than that. Doesn’t matter if it was for 5 days or 5 minutes. If I own a DVD and distribute more than copy simultaneously even if it’s time limited and even if I keep the DRM I’ve still violated copyright.
  - nitrogen 6y ago
    Physical books do not come with licenses. Lending falls under first sale doctrine.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - Spivak 6y ago
      Right, but digital lending looks a lot more like software licenses where libraries buy "seats" that correspond the number of simultaneous borrowers. If you have more borrowers than seats you've violated copyright. Most libraries work with publishers to buy lending rights directly but IA is arguing that if I hold one physical copy of a work and promise not to "perform" (copyright jargon is odd) it while it's in my possession then I may transmit that work digitally to another person kinda bridging first sale and seats of digital lending licenses. I guess we'll find out if the court buys it. Because under normal circumstances this is open and shut copyright violation.
- colonwqbang 6y ago
  > one can argue that the demand wasn't bigger than what the public libraries would have been able to handle By this logic, I can speculate that there is probably at least one copy of the Star Wars ep V DVD sitting in some library's bookshelf not being watched right now. So it's completely ok if I "lend" myself a copy and watch it without paying. Since the demand was probably not higher than what could have been satisfied with the number of phyiscal copies of the DVD present in the libraries of the world today. Or maybe it was, who knows man? This is, to put it mildly, not how copyright works. Internet Archive will have to learn that the hard way now in court. Which sucks, because I really like IA. I wish they will refrain from pulling any more crap like this.

If there's no limits on how many copies they would hand out and no limit on how often you can check out the same book, then for practical purposes it's not time limited.

acqq 6y ago

> no limit on how often you can check out the same book There was always a fixed limit on how long the book remains checked out, and it must have already expired to all that checked it out at that time. The DRM protection remained active. Edit: answering the post below: > They had a limited number of licenses to produce works and they produced more than that. It was at the times that all the physical libraries were closed, one can argue that the demand wasn't bigger than what the public libraries would have been able to handle, and even it had been bigger, it was only because of that exceptional emergency happening. But I agree it would have been much clearer had they made some fixed limits corresponding to the estimated number of the books in the physical libraries.

Rebelgecko 6y ago
I don't think the fact that physical libraries are closed is relevant, because they weren't loaning out physical books. They were loaning out ebooks, which many (most? All?) libraries had continued to do, totally unaffected by COVID-19
Spivak 6y ago
This really doesn’t matter because the work was duplicated regardless of the fact that it was time limited. They had a limited number of licenses to produce works and they produced more than that. Doesn’t matter if it was for 5 days or 5 minutes. If I own a DVD and distribute more than copy simultaneously even if it’s time limited and even if I keep the DRM I’ve still violated copyright.
- nitrogen 6y ago
  Physical books do not come with licenses. Lending falls under first sale doctrine.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Spivak 6y ago
    Right, but digital lending looks a lot more like software licenses where libraries buy "seats" that correspond the number of simultaneous borrowers. If you have more borrowers than seats you've violated copyright. Most libraries work with publishers to buy lending rights directly but IA is arguing that if I hold one physical copy of a work and promise not to "perform" (copyright jargon is odd) it while it's in my possession then I may transmit that work digitally to another person kinda bridging first sale and seats of digital lending licenses. I guess we'll find out if the court buys it. Because under normal circumstances this is open and shut copyright violation.
colonwqbang 6y ago
> one can argue that the demand wasn't bigger than what the public libraries would have been able to handle By this logic, I can speculate that there is probably at least one copy of the Star Wars ep V DVD sitting in some library's bookshelf not being watched right now. So it's completely ok if I "lend" myself a copy and watch it without paying. Since the demand was probably not higher than what could have been satisfied with the number of phyiscal copies of the DVD present in the libraries of the world today. Or maybe it was, who knows man? This is, to put it mildly, not how copyright works. Internet Archive will have to learn that the hard way now in court. Which sucks, because I really like IA. I wish they will refrain from pulling any more crap like this.