4 ms·
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
by 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 agoIt'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.