3 ms·

Doesn't the Internet Archive do the exact same thing, scanning a physical book that they actually own? Per the article linked above: > Although creating its ow

Doesn't the Internet Archive do the exact same thing, scanning a physical book that they actually own? Per the article linked above: > Although creating its own unsanctioned e-books triggered the lawsuit, Gratz argued that IA’s digital lending is fair use, precisely because it makes copies of the physical books in its Open Library collection. That, he said, is “transformative” fair use, utilizing technologies to transform millions of physical books in order to improve the efficiency of lending without encroaching on publishers’ or authors’ rights. Gratz said that IA avoids the conflict by only lending out e-books to one user at a time, causing no harm because it honors traditional lending in brick-and-mortar libraries that has been practiced for years without impacting publishers’ bottom lines. > The only exception to this one-to-one ratio was when IA launched the “National Emergency Library” for 12 weeks when the pandemic started, offering “an enormous universe of scanned books to an unlimited number of individuals simultaneously,” the plaintiff's complaint said.

squeaky-clean 4y ago
The difference is VidAngel owned 1 copy for each concurrent live stream. You can rip a movie or scan a book you own and share it with a million people at once. VidAngel wasn't doing that. Every stream was 1-to-1 with a real physical copy. If they had 1000 people streaming the movies at once, it meant they had 1000 physical copies as well.
- boomboomsubban 4y ago
  That is how the IA's controlled digital lending works. For every copy lent out, there's a physical copy of the book sitting unused somewhere owned by the IA or affiliates. The only time that wasn't true was during the National Emergency Library.
  - ocdtrekkie 4y ago
    A key point is that IA suspended CDL and decided to lend out unlimited copies during the pandemic. They were probably treading the line with CDL but by demonstrating a willingness to throw out the limitations at any given world event they wanted makes it a pretty slam dunk case for the publishers.
    - boomboomsubban 4y ago
      The publishers have a slam dunk case against the National Emergency Library, but this case is about CDL as a whole.

squeaky-clean 4y ago

The difference is VidAngel owned 1 copy for each concurrent live stream. You can rip a movie or scan a book you own and share it with a million people at once. VidAngel wasn't doing that. Every stream was 1-to-1 with a real physical copy. If they had 1000 people streaming the movies at once, it meant they had 1000 physical copies as well.

boomboomsubban 4y ago
That is how the IA's controlled digital lending works. For every copy lent out, there's a physical copy of the book sitting unused somewhere owned by the IA or affiliates. The only time that wasn't true was during the National Emergency Library.
- ocdtrekkie 4y ago
  A key point is that IA suspended CDL and decided to lend out unlimited copies during the pandemic. They were probably treading the line with CDL but by demonstrating a willingness to throw out the limitations at any given world event they wanted makes it a pretty slam dunk case for the publishers.
  - boomboomsubban 4y ago
    The publishers have a slam dunk case against the National Emergency Library, but this case is about CDL as a whole.