4 ms·

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.
        tsimionescu 4y ago
        > I’m pretty sure I can do that. Not legally. > 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. This is the part that is not true. For example, you are free to transcribe a book onto a parchement and read it that way, and store the parchment separately from the book for archival purposes, and keep the parchement even if the original book gets destroyed. However, this is a limited exception to copyright. You are not in fact allowed, at any point before or after the original copy is destroyed, to lend or re-sell the parchment you created. That parchment will forever be an unauthorized copy, but one that you are allowed to use in certain limited ways. The only wrinkle is that, at least in the EU, when you acquire an authorized digital copy of a work, you are allowed to lend or sell that copy as long as you don't retain access to it during the lending/after the sale. This is allowed even though technically you are technically creating a new copy of the digital work and destroying your own afterwards, but this is an exception specific to digital realms, it can't be extended to digital copies you make of a phyisical work.
    - HDThoreaun 4y ago
      Can they just buy an ebook instead of a physical copy?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
mr_woozy 4y ago
[dead]

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.
        tsimionescu 4y ago
        > I’m pretty sure I can do that. Not legally. > 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. This is the part that is not true. For example, you are free to transcribe a book onto a parchement and read it that way, and store the parchment separately from the book for archival purposes, and keep the parchement even if the original book gets destroyed. However, this is a limited exception to copyright. You are not in fact allowed, at any point before or after the original copy is destroyed, to lend or re-sell the parchment you created. That parchment will forever be an unauthorized copy, but one that you are allowed to use in certain limited ways. The only wrinkle is that, at least in the EU, when you acquire an authorized digital copy of a work, you are allowed to lend or sell that copy as long as you don't retain access to it during the lending/after the sale. This is allowed even though technically you are technically creating a new copy of the digital work and destroying your own afterwards, but this is an exception specific to digital realms, it can't be extended to digital copies you make of a phyisical work.
  - HDThoreaun 4y ago
    Can they just buy an ebook instead of a physical copy?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

mr_woozy 4y ago

[dead]