3 ms·

A lot of people seem to have some confusion about what this lawsuit is about. This is not just a lawsuit about the NEL (National Emergency Library) initiative (

by shkkmo 4y ago

A lot of people seem to have some confusion about what this lawsuit is about. This is not just a lawsuit about the NEL (National Emergency Library) initiative (which stands on shakier ground), but about the whole concept of CDL (Controlled Digital Lending). Publishers are trying to use ebooks to accomplish their long standing goal of collecting revenue each time a book is lent by a library. They have tried to get this added to copyright law for physical books by Congress multiple times and have failed. Large publishers refuse to sell libraries ebooks that can be lent out over and over, preferring instead to license ebooks with a limited number of lends or a fee per lend. With CDL, libraries scan their own physical books, remove those books from circulation, and lend that digital copy to one user (per book they own that is not circulating.) While publishers like to claim that CDL is an obvious copyright violation, it is untested legal ground as to whether CDL qualifies as fair use or not. To me, the ideal outcome is that courts uphold CDL as fair use, but holds the IA responsible for playing fast and loose with the NEL program.

matwood 4y ago
This is a good summary. One other thing to note is that not all publishers are like the big 4-5. Many mid level and smaller publishers will sell libraries perpetual single use or sim use copies, sometimes after an embargo period.
whatshisface 4y ago
The document argues that the NEL was fair use in IV. B. Here is part of what they say: >In those unique circumstances, the Internet Archive reasoned that the technical controls limiting the number of concurrent lends to the number of non-circulating copies Internet Archive or its partner libraries had on hand was not necessary. Id. ¶ 71. Given the massive number of books sitting idle on library shelves, doing so would not increase the number of copies of books in circulation above the number of copies libraries had bought and paid for. Id. ¶¶ 92–95. The Internet Archive still imposed the full array of other protections—lending books for limited periods, using DRM software to protect the books from being kept outside that loan period, and so on. Id. ¶¶ 34–35. And under those unique circumstances, lending books in that way was fair use. As with CDL, analysis of the data reflects that the publishers did not actually lose out on any revenues as a result of the NEL.

by shkkmo 4y ago

matwood 4y ago

This is a good summary. One other thing to note is that not all publishers are like the big 4-5. Many mid level and smaller publishers will sell libraries perpetual single use or sim use copies, sometimes after an embargo period.

whatshisface 4y ago

The document argues that the NEL was fair use in IV. B. Here is part of what they say: >In those unique circumstances, the Internet Archive reasoned that the technical controls limiting the number of concurrent lends to the number of non-circulating copies Internet Archive or its partner libraries had on hand was not necessary. Id. ¶ 71. Given the massive number of books sitting idle on library shelves, doing so would not increase the number of copies of books in circulation above the number of copies libraries had bought and paid for. Id. ¶¶ 92–95. The Internet Archive still imposed the full array of other protections—lending books for limited periods, using DRM software to protect the books from being kept outside that loan period, and so on. Id. ¶¶ 34–35. And under those unique circumstances, lending books in that way was fair use. As with CDL, analysis of the data reflects that the publishers did not actually lose out on any revenues as a result of the NEL.