3 ms·

> They decided to loan out digital assets without any regard to the backed licenses available. No, they loan out a digital copy, protected by DRM, of an asset

> They decided to loan out digital assets without any regard to the backed licenses available. No, they loan out a digital copy, protected by DRM, of an asset that they physically own. The idea that only the publisher could produce an e-book version of a paper book for public distribution protected by DRM, and that the e-book version needs to be licensed, is completely ludicrous. If they only went after the emergency library then fine—I am curious, and the judge is too, how they would've computed monetary damages, but that was clearly a copyright violation. But shutting down CDL altogether would be a lot darker. Fun fact, the only time I used the IA to borrow a book I ended up buying it. But it was out of print, so I bought it used and the publisher didn't see a dime. Based on this case I think they wouldn't have deserved it anyway.

nickff 4y ago
They probably went after the 'core function' along with the 'emergency library' as a negotiating tactic, to achieve a satisfactory settlement which would shut down the EL quickly and permanently. Perhaps unfortunately, the IA refused to make that deal, so the whole thing is going to court, with somewhat unpredictable results.
endisneigh 4y ago
I do not have any particular opinion on this. However, do you think it would be OK for the IA, or another entity, to purchase a physical book, create an audio book from it, and lend the audiobook in a manner similar to what the IA is doing now? Regardless of your opinion, the "transformation" of this matter is effectively what the plaintiff is arguing against with respect to paper book to digital book. If the answer ends up being that it's fine (I imagine in either scenario it will end up being appealed to near the Supreme court), it would have pretty interesting implications.
- lalopalota 4y ago
  Creating + lending an audiobook should be fine, the same as creating an ebook. As long as only 1 copy is loaned out per physical item owned (can't loan the ebook if someone has the audiobook), I don't see the difference. What if they create a physical braille version and loan that out to blind people? 1-to-1 lending should be acceptable in any case.

nickff 4y ago

They probably went after the 'core function' along with the 'emergency library' as a negotiating tactic, to achieve a satisfactory settlement which would shut down the EL quickly and permanently. Perhaps unfortunately, the IA refused to make that deal, so the whole thing is going to court, with somewhat unpredictable results.

endisneigh 4y ago

I do not have any particular opinion on this. However, do you think it would be OK for the IA, or another entity, to purchase a physical book, create an audio book from it, and lend the audiobook in a manner similar to what the IA is doing now? Regardless of your opinion, the "transformation" of this matter is effectively what the plaintiff is arguing against with respect to paper book to digital book. If the answer ends up being that it's fine (I imagine in either scenario it will end up being appealed to near the Supreme court), it would have pretty interesting implications.

lalopalota 4y ago
Creating + lending an audiobook should be fine, the same as creating an ebook. As long as only 1 copy is loaned out per physical item owned (can't loan the ebook if someone has the audiobook), I don't see the difference. What if they create a physical braille version and loan that out to blind people? 1-to-1 lending should be acceptable in any case.