6 ms·

I'm also an author, though not represented by one of the parties. My personal reaction was that the "uncontrolled" digital lending was still very controlled. It

I'm also an author, though not represented by one of the parties. My personal reaction was that the "uncontrolled" digital lending was still very controlled. It was media-constrained (some patrons complained about this), time-controlled, and overall a far cry from the idea of just giving books away in what most would view as an "uncontrolled" fashion. For this reason I also think use of the "uncontrolled" term is unfair, disingenuous, and even does a disservice to the public at large. It further propagates the myth that loosening already-strict controls is the same as having no controls at all.

chadash 6y ago
The internet archive was expressly using "Controlled Digital Lending" [0], a term that they subscribed to that seems to clearly mean "no more copies lent out a time than the number of physical copies owned". They decided to abandon this limitation. The opposite of controlled is uncontrolled, so seems like a fair term to me. [0] https://controlleddigitallending.org/ https://controlleddigitallending.org/
- themodelplumber 6y ago
  That an opposite term exists does not mean that abandonment or a shift away from the original term mandates a shift to the opposite. If my computer stops "running very fast," that doesn't mean that it is now "running very slow." In this way, "uncontrolled" is not a fair term; rather it seems to be used for a specific, possibly unfair purpose by a specific side in this argument. The fact is, IA had specific, qualitatively-controlling controls on their lending, and anyone who checked out one of the books could see exactly what that meant. Nuances are important here.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    In this case, "uncontrolled" digital lending is the appropriate term, because the IA admits that they removed those controls as part of the National "Emergency" Library program. Also, why does it matter if 130 libraries said they were okay with the CDL program, since that's not at issue here? Library CDL programs were still online and functioning the entire time. Only the physical facilities were closed.
    - boogies 6y ago
      They removed one type of control. “Uncontrolled” implies that there was no control whatsoever (no time limits, etc.).
      - chadash 6y ago
        There is a 14 day time limit, but you can renew when that's over, with no limitations based on who else has a copy of the book. So it doesn't seem like a very meaningful control, certainly not in the eye of the copyright holder.
        acqq 6y ago
        > you can renew when that's over You could now try, if the DRM allows it, and the Internet Archive only temporarily during the lockdowns, through the DRM, allowed more than one person to read the book. That is, you could have had it for 14 days, but now you just couldn't renew it anymore unless nobody reads it.
      - gamblor956 6y ago
        Controlled in the context relevant to this case relates to the number of copies, not the duration of each lending term. It doesn't matter how long the lending term is if you lend infinite simultaneous copies.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        mcguire 6y ago
        As far as I know, no one, much less the Internet Archive, is currently capable of lending infinite simultaneous copies.
        joshuamorton 6y ago
        The publishers concern is exactly that IA could do that, since the number of copies they were lending wasn't actually tied to anything they owned or were licensed to lend.
  - chadash 6y ago
    They aren't using the word "controlled". They are using "controlled digital lending" which has a specific meaning that the Internet Archive subscribes to, which they summarize as: > Essentially, CDL must maintain an “owned to loaned” ratio. Circulation in any format is controlled so that only one user can use any given copy at a time, for a limited time. Further, CDL systems generally employ appropriate technical measures to prevent users from retaining a permanent copy or distributing additional copies. So what they are doing definitely is not "controlled digital lending", by their own definition. At best, it's semi-controlled, but the real essence of the "control" is the number of copies, so "uncontrolled" seems fair.
    - themodelplumber 6y ago
      This implies that their definition begins and ends with that paragraph. I would tend to go to them and ask them to verify that this limiting definition was exactly what they had in mind (as opposed to a simple blurb); that additional lending controls are in use by IA, including controls which are not explicitly written into that paragraph, is something that is easily validated online. If they do agree with you that the paragraph you pasted is their end-to-end definition of "controlled," that means they haven't yet incorporated these other controls into their definition, and they definitely still can and should. There's no singular time limit or definite requirement to define such things in this case, and IA have engaged lots of controls, from HTTPS and authentication on up to content-level media and time controls.
      - chadash 6y ago
        That's not just a blurb that someone typed accidentally. It's an official position statement that they signed onto and the definition is also reiterated in the accompanying white paper [0]. Sure, they can change their position. But A) I can't go off of what is potentially in some stranger's head and B) they would be redefining the term. [0] https://controlleddigitallending.org/whitepaper https://controlleddigitallending.org/whitepaper edit: I hear where you are coming from though. I agree it's got some "control", so you don't like the term "uncontrolled". But I think we probably agree that it isn't "controlled digital lending" even if it is "controlled" to some extent.
- kbenson 6y ago
  > The opposite of controlled is uncontrolled, so seems like a fair term to me. No longer strictly doing something does not imply it's opposite. For example, the opposite of help is harm, and no longer helping something does not imply you are harming them, does it? These terms are the extremes of a spectrum. Noting that you are no longer on one extreme of a spectrum does not immediately imply you are now at the other extreme.
  - cgriswald 6y ago
    Harming or helping someone is a spectrum with a neutral point. You can help someone. You can harm someone. You can help someone more or help someone less. Or you can neither help nor harm someone. Because there is that neutral point, when we say someone stopped helping, there is a state other than harming in which they can be, so harming is not implied (although it still may be the case). Control of a variable—in this case the number of copies lent—is strictly binary. There is no neutral state in which the variable can be neither controlled nor uncontrolled.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - kbenson 6y ago
      > Control of a variable—in this case the number of copies lent—is strictly binary. There is no neutral state in which the variable can be neither controlled nor uncontrolled. This is the crux of the point. Control over a variable is not what's in question. Control over many variables is, some of which were controlled and some weren't. In that respect, if you go from a controlled process where the variables in question are all controlled to one in which some of them are, it is not now "uncontrolled", it's partially controlled, it's also partially uncontrolled. There is less control, but it doesn't make sense to call it uncontrolled where there is still control over some variables retained, and we're still using the same context which applies to the same set of variables.
      - cgriswald 6y ago
- pjjw 6y ago
  ignore trolls who insist on using tautologies to bend language to superficially make a point.
jjcon 6y ago
> It was media-constrained It 100% wasn’t. IA after the fact tried to justify their uncontrolled lending by saying they were lending out copies that were owned by the shut down libraries all over the country. First, nobody gave them ownership of those copies. Second, most libraries already have legal digital lending systems and so their digital stocks were going out too (which also negates IAs after the fact justification).
- themodelplumber 6y ago
  By media-constrained I'm referring to the fact that, as far as I could tell, once you checked out one of these books, there was no way to grab a PDF and run. There was no way to grab an EPUB and bob's your uncle, you're in Kindle or iBooks and reading your text. This constitutes an easily validated, qualitative, experiential difference from what parties to the case are implying. If this isn't the case, let me know.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    That's not what the publishes are implying at all. They could care less about the technicalities of whether the IA copies were ePubs or Mobis or whatever. The publishers are saying that, regardless of the form of media, the IA engaged in uncontrolled digital lending, meaning that they lent out more digital copies of books than they actually owned, digitally or physically (or that were lent to them by their so-called partner libraries either digitally or physically). Because they did not actually own or possess the copies underlying these loans, they were required by copyright law (in the US and the EU) to either acquire more physical copies or to license more digital copies.
    - mcguire 6y ago
      "Uncontrolled digital lending" seems a very strange term for * lending in specified forms, which require illegal activity to make further copies, and * lending for a specified time, which requires illegal activity to extend. Welcome to NewSpeak, where "uncontrolled" means fairly tightly controlled.

chadash 6y ago

The internet archive was expressly using "Controlled Digital Lending" [0], a term that they subscribed to that seems to clearly mean "no more copies lent out a time than the number of physical copies owned". They decided to abandon this limitation. The opposite of controlled is uncontrolled, so seems like a fair term to me. [0] https://controlleddigitallending.org/ https://controlleddigitallending.org/

themodelplumber 6y ago
That an opposite term exists does not mean that abandonment or a shift away from the original term mandates a shift to the opposite. If my computer stops "running very fast," that doesn't mean that it is now "running very slow." In this way, "uncontrolled" is not a fair term; rather it seems to be used for a specific, possibly unfair purpose by a specific side in this argument. The fact is, IA had specific, qualitatively-controlling controls on their lending, and anyone who checked out one of the books could see exactly what that meant. Nuances are important here.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  In this case, "uncontrolled" digital lending is the appropriate term, because the IA admits that they removed those controls as part of the National "Emergency" Library program. Also, why does it matter if 130 libraries said they were okay with the CDL program, since that's not at issue here? Library CDL programs were still online and functioning the entire time. Only the physical facilities were closed.
  - boogies 6y ago
    They removed one type of control. “Uncontrolled” implies that there was no control whatsoever (no time limits, etc.).
    - chadash 6y ago
      There is a 14 day time limit, but you can renew when that's over, with no limitations based on who else has a copy of the book. So it doesn't seem like a very meaningful control, certainly not in the eye of the copyright holder.
      - acqq 6y ago
        > you can renew when that's over You could now try, if the DRM allows it, and the Internet Archive only temporarily during the lockdowns, through the DRM, allowed more than one person to read the book. That is, you could have had it for 14 days, but now you just couldn't renew it anymore unless nobody reads it.
    - gamblor956 6y ago
      Controlled in the context relevant to this case relates to the number of copies, not the duration of each lending term. It doesn't matter how long the lending term is if you lend infinite simultaneous copies.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - mcguire 6y ago
        As far as I know, no one, much less the Internet Archive, is currently capable of lending infinite simultaneous copies.
        joshuamorton 6y ago
        The publishers concern is exactly that IA could do that, since the number of copies they were lending wasn't actually tied to anything they owned or were licensed to lend.
- chadash 6y ago
  They aren't using the word "controlled". They are using "controlled digital lending" which has a specific meaning that the Internet Archive subscribes to, which they summarize as: > Essentially, CDL must maintain an “owned to loaned” ratio. Circulation in any format is controlled so that only one user can use any given copy at a time, for a limited time. Further, CDL systems generally employ appropriate technical measures to prevent users from retaining a permanent copy or distributing additional copies. So what they are doing definitely is not "controlled digital lending", by their own definition. At best, it's semi-controlled, but the real essence of the "control" is the number of copies, so "uncontrolled" seems fair.
  - themodelplumber 6y ago
    This implies that their definition begins and ends with that paragraph. I would tend to go to them and ask them to verify that this limiting definition was exactly what they had in mind (as opposed to a simple blurb); that additional lending controls are in use by IA, including controls which are not explicitly written into that paragraph, is something that is easily validated online. If they do agree with you that the paragraph you pasted is their end-to-end definition of "controlled," that means they haven't yet incorporated these other controls into their definition, and they definitely still can and should. There's no singular time limit or definite requirement to define such things in this case, and IA have engaged lots of controls, from HTTPS and authentication on up to content-level media and time controls.
    - chadash 6y ago
      That's not just a blurb that someone typed accidentally. It's an official position statement that they signed onto and the definition is also reiterated in the accompanying white paper [0]. Sure, they can change their position. But A) I can't go off of what is potentially in some stranger's head and B) they would be redefining the term. [0] https://controlleddigitallending.org/whitepaper https://controlleddigitallending.org/whitepaper edit: I hear where you are coming from though. I agree it's got some "control", so you don't like the term "uncontrolled". But I think we probably agree that it isn't "controlled digital lending" even if it is "controlled" to some extent.
kbenson 6y ago
> The opposite of controlled is uncontrolled, so seems like a fair term to me. No longer strictly doing something does not imply it's opposite. For example, the opposite of help is harm, and no longer helping something does not imply you are harming them, does it? These terms are the extremes of a spectrum. Noting that you are no longer on one extreme of a spectrum does not immediately imply you are now at the other extreme.
- cgriswald 6y ago
  Harming or helping someone is a spectrum with a neutral point. You can help someone. You can harm someone. You can help someone more or help someone less. Or you can neither help nor harm someone. Because there is that neutral point, when we say someone stopped helping, there is a state other than harming in which they can be, so harming is not implied (although it still may be the case). Control of a variable—in this case the number of copies lent—is strictly binary. There is no neutral state in which the variable can be neither controlled nor uncontrolled.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - kbenson 6y ago
    > Control of a variable—in this case the number of copies lent—is strictly binary. There is no neutral state in which the variable can be neither controlled nor uncontrolled. This is the crux of the point. Control over a variable is not what's in question. Control over many variables is, some of which were controlled and some weren't. In that respect, if you go from a controlled process where the variables in question are all controlled to one in which some of them are, it is not now "uncontrolled", it's partially controlled, it's also partially uncontrolled. There is less control, but it doesn't make sense to call it uncontrolled where there is still control over some variables retained, and we're still using the same context which applies to the same set of variables.
    - cgriswald 6y ago
pjjw 6y ago
ignore trolls who insist on using tautologies to bend language to superficially make a point.

jjcon 6y ago

> It was media-constrained It 100% wasn’t. IA after the fact tried to justify their uncontrolled lending by saying they were lending out copies that were owned by the shut down libraries all over the country. First, nobody gave them ownership of those copies. Second, most libraries already have legal digital lending systems and so their digital stocks were going out too (which also negates IAs after the fact justification).

themodelplumber 6y ago
By media-constrained I'm referring to the fact that, as far as I could tell, once you checked out one of these books, there was no way to grab a PDF and run. There was no way to grab an EPUB and bob's your uncle, you're in Kindle or iBooks and reading your text. This constitutes an easily validated, qualitative, experiential difference from what parties to the case are implying. If this isn't the case, let me know.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  That's not what the publishes are implying at all. They could care less about the technicalities of whether the IA copies were ePubs or Mobis or whatever. The publishers are saying that, regardless of the form of media, the IA engaged in uncontrolled digital lending, meaning that they lent out more digital copies of books than they actually owned, digitally or physically (or that were lent to them by their so-called partner libraries either digitally or physically). Because they did not actually own or possess the copies underlying these loans, they were required by copyright law (in the US and the EU) to either acquire more physical copies or to license more digital copies.
  - mcguire 6y ago
    "Uncontrolled digital lending" seems a very strange term for * lending in specified forms, which require illegal activity to make further copies, and * lending for a specified time, which requires illegal activity to extend. Welcome to NewSpeak, where "uncontrolled" means fairly tightly controlled.