6 ms·

> Don't many community/government libraries do this? Those books are licensed to the libraries by the publishers. The introduction of the opinion here explains

> Don't many community/government libraries do this? Those books are licensed to the libraries by the publishers. The introduction of the opinion here explains how it works: > This dispute concerns the way libraries lend ebooks. Public and academic libraries in the United States spend billions of dollars each year obtaining print books and ebooks for their patrons to borrow for free. Pls.’ 56.1 ¶ 113. Libraries usually buy their print books from publishers or wholesalers. Id. ¶ 114. Copies of ebooks, however, are typically not bought but licensed to libraries from publishers through distributors called “aggregators.” Id. ¶ 117. The Publishers task aggregators with ensuring that a library lends its ebooks only to the library’s members. Id. ¶¶ 123, 125. The Publishers also require aggregators to employ approved “digital rights management” (“DRM”) software and other security measures to prevent unauthorized copying or distribution of ebook files. Id. ¶ 126. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.537900/gov.uscourts.nysd.537900.188.0.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1rM4_dbpOOKJUi5fRa112PSyoEYcd1z_ePwpL4WUEgA1FVIiWuiLCRs8w https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.53..., page 3 (emphasis added).

encryptluks2 4y ago
So then IA just needs to have a free membership and implement the most basic DRM.
- teraflop 4y ago
  Libraries' ebook lending programs are not legal because they require membership and use DRM. They're legal because they're authorized by the copyright owners, and those are the terms the copyright owners choose to impose (along with licensing fees).
  - drdaeman 4y ago
    But if I purchase the paper book, there is - thankfully - no shrink-wrap licensing anywhere that tells me that I can or cannot lend it to anyone, yet I sure hope I can. Why IA can't?
    - sparky_z 4y ago
      They can lend the book, they just can't make a copy of it and lend the copy instead.
      - eyelidlessness 4y ago
        Which might be legally sound (so says this court, we will presumably hear from others), but it’s logically balderdash. The copyright applies to the “intellectual property” content of the book, not its paper and binding. (I’m sure there are some esoteric exceptions to this because artists gonna art, but I feel confident that I’m representing the vast general case correctly.) If I rightly own a copy of a book, I don’t think any court within the bounds of absurdity would say I can’t make a digital copy for myself because that’s how I prefer to consume it. Being allowed to lend one finite form but not another equivalent one is definitely something law or license might specify, but that doesn’t mean it makes any kind of sense.
        leeoniya 4y ago
        > a digital copy for myself "myself" being the operative word here. you can make 100 copies for yourself. what you can't do is make a copy that you give to someone else while simultaneously retaining access to the original (or another copy). the way libraries work is by relinquishing posession, which replication would circumvent.
        eyelidlessness 4y ago
        > what you can't do is make a copy that you give to someone else while simultaneously retaining access to the original (or another copy). I’m pretty sure I can do that. > the way libraries work is by relinquishing posession I almost included that I could shred my copy, keeping only the digital equivalent, and still retain the same rights to the work and lending it. Any individual in IA’s position could do this without fear of legal scrutiny. An organization doing it is under scrutiny not because there’s actual, meaningful copyright violation happening but because they systemized a thing no reasonable person would object to individuals doing.
- mr_woozy 4y ago
  [dead]
grey413 4y ago
It's worth emphasizing that part of the reason why publishers are happy to work with providing libraries with ebooks is that libraries are extremely good customers. There's something like 100,000 libraries in the US alone. A single organization like the Internet Archive just simply doesn't have the purchasing power to make publishers willing to give up any ground.

encryptluks2 4y ago

So then IA just needs to have a free membership and implement the most basic DRM.

teraflop 4y ago
Libraries' ebook lending programs are not legal because they require membership and use DRM. They're legal because they're authorized by the copyright owners, and those are the terms the copyright owners choose to impose (along with licensing fees).
- drdaeman 4y ago
  But if I purchase the paper book, there is - thankfully - no shrink-wrap licensing anywhere that tells me that I can or cannot lend it to anyone, yet I sure hope I can. Why IA can't?
  - sparky_z 4y ago
    They can lend the book, they just can't make a copy of it and lend the copy instead.
    - eyelidlessness 4y ago
      Which might be legally sound (so says this court, we will presumably hear from others), but it’s logically balderdash. The copyright applies to the “intellectual property” content of the book, not its paper and binding. (I’m sure there are some esoteric exceptions to this because artists gonna art, but I feel confident that I’m representing the vast general case correctly.) If I rightly own a copy of a book, I don’t think any court within the bounds of absurdity would say I can’t make a digital copy for myself because that’s how I prefer to consume it. Being allowed to lend one finite form but not another equivalent one is definitely something law or license might specify, but that doesn’t mean it makes any kind of sense.
      - leeoniya 4y ago
        > a digital copy for myself "myself" being the operative word here. you can make 100 copies for yourself. what you can't do is make a copy that you give to someone else while simultaneously retaining access to the original (or another copy). the way libraries work is by relinquishing posession, which replication would circumvent.
        eyelidlessness 4y ago
        > what you can't do is make a copy that you give to someone else while simultaneously retaining access to the original (or another copy). I’m pretty sure I can do that. > the way libraries work is by relinquishing posession I almost included that I could shred my copy, keeping only the digital equivalent, and still retain the same rights to the work and lending it. Any individual in IA’s position could do this without fear of legal scrutiny. An organization doing it is under scrutiny not because there’s actual, meaningful copyright violation happening but because they systemized a thing no reasonable person would object to individuals doing.
mr_woozy 4y ago
[dead]

grey413 4y ago

It's worth emphasizing that part of the reason why publishers are happy to work with providing libraries with ebooks is that libraries are extremely good customers. There's something like 100,000 libraries in the US alone. A single organization like the Internet Archive just simply doesn't have the purchasing power to make publishers willing to give up any ground.