4 ms·
> They would need to demonstrate they had a strict license counting system in place where libraries put in what they had and the system counted how much it borr
by adhesive_wombat 4y ago
> They would need to demonstrate they had a strict license counting system in place where libraries put in what they had and the system counted how much it borrowed
They already do have such a system. If they "have" multiple copies of a book edition, then the "borrow" period is 14 days. If they have only one copy, then it's only one hour, so that the book remains more available to others.
This means that they are aware of how many "licences" they hold and reference count the accesses to each edition against that figure.
Whether they indeed bypassed that system for the NEL and provably allowed excessive accesses being their holdings, well, that's for the court to hear.
- boomboomsubban 4y ago>Whether they indeed bypassed that system for the NEL and provably allowed excessive accesses being their holdings, well, that's for the court to hear Pretty sure this summary judgment openly admits they did.
- adhesive_wombat 4y agoFrom the summary judgement request: > The Internet Archive’s belief that the NEL’s loaned copies would be fewer than the number of existing non-circulating physical copies proved to be correct. So the Internet Archive claim it didn't, though it's not providing complete and concrete proof that no title went over the limit. Then again, it's on the prosecution to demonstrate that they actually did.
- boomboomsubban 4y agoKeep reading after that line. They're talking about the total number of out-of-circulation copies of a book in all closed US public libraries, not the ones they have the explicit right to use. And earlier they say the emergency library temporarily lifted the 1 to 1 ratio controls, which is openly admitting they did.