3 ms·

> With CDL it’s a scan of that book, but the scan is tied to the physical copy, so that if a digital copy is loaned out, no one else can take out another copy.

• matwood 4y ago
  There are lots of 1 book/1 user DRM schemes in the library world. That's how all checkout based digital systems work today.
• bonzini 4y ago
  Yes, it's DRM. Both "normal" e-book lending and CDL use the same DRM and to be honest it's the only use of DRM that I don't object to. Controlled digital lending however gets rid of the publisher's license to make loans (where the library pays per checkout or for a fixed amount of time); instead, the library buys the hardcopy book, prepares a self-made ebook version, and pinky-promises that they will abide by the 1 copy-1 loan rule so that they can claim fair use. It's certainly dubious, but it's not out of this world either. And what's even more dubious, are the publishers' attempts at eroding the first-sale doctrine. (Adobe Digital Editions is a fairly trivial DRM to bypass by the way—I won't even say crack because on macOS the private key used to be hidden in plain sight in DER format—but it seems to be okay for publishers to use it when they make money out of loans. So the weakness of the DRM is not the issue).
  • TheCoelacanth 4y ago
    It's even easier to just download a pirated copy than to bypass the DRM. The mere fact that someone is using CDL is strong evidence that they are following the rules and not trying to make an illicit copy.
  • dublinben 4y ago
    It’s only dubious from the publishers’ perspective. It’s not much of a stretch to apply modern technology like streaming video, interactive screen sharing, or virtual reality to the established concept of a reading room, and wind up with something like CDL. There’s no technical reason why a patron shouldn’t be able to virtually ‘step into’ a reading room, and peruse something in the library’s collection. This would have been possible one book at a time using 20th century cable television broadcast and a telephone line. The internet just multiplies the number of ‘channels’ or books available concurrently to different patrons.
    • bonzini 4y ago
      It's dubious in the sense that you _are_ distributing a copy of the work. So, just like a lot of other fair uses, you have to accept that it ends up being litigated, or forbidden when the law changes. The API copying in Oracle v. Google was also dubious in the legal sense, or it wouldn't have ended up in front of the Supreme Court. That's just what the situation was like from the legal POV ten years ago, even though it was standard practice in the field and it ended up winning nicely in the Supreme Court. Now it's not dubious anymore. > It’s not much of a stretch to apply modern technology like streaming video, interactive screen sharing, or virtual reality to the established concept of a reading room, and wind up with something like CDL That's a good point.