4 ms·

Exactly. And there lies the issue. Internet archive has the book and lends the book simultaneously. Hence why they lost.

benatkin 4y ago
[dead]
hackernewds 4y ago
This makes logical sense. Pay for one, lend one.
- jrmg 4y ago
  The ruling discusses this (at length!) and concludes that even a buy-one-physical-lend-one-digital scheme would not be acceptable under current law.
criddell 4y ago
Do you think it would have made a difference if they bought three copies of the book and then shredded two of them? That way they would have the original they scanned, their digital version they copy to lend, and the loaned digital copy.
- endisneigh 4y ago
  No, because they still wouldn’t be lending out what was bought.
dahart 4y ago
No, that’s not why they lost. The reason is because they effectively lend it to many people simultaneously, and implement no controls on getting it “returned” (deleted) by the people they lent it to, while even being aware that some of them don’t “return” it. The technicality that they keep a copy of the book while it’s being lent isn’t really at issue here at all. It’s not because there are two copies, it’s because there are three or more copies, given to two or more parties at the same time. It has become “distribution” in the eyes of copyright law, beyond the lending analogy.
- endisneigh 4y ago
  Even if they did what you described they would still lose. There would be no way to implement a control to prevent an additional simultaneous copy. It's not a technical issue, it's simple impossible inherently. I don't know why companies keep trying this. MP3.com, Aereo, etc. The precedent is clear.
  - dahart 4y ago
    The question isn’t whether it’s technically possible, the question is whether they even tried, and one of the reasons they lost is not just because they didn’t try at all, they instead looked the other way when they knew the borrowers didn’t “return” the book.
    - endisneigh 4y ago
      my point is that even if they did try, the outcome would've been the same and CDL was doomed from the beginning. their inane emergency CDL plan simply accelerated this outcome
      - dahart 4y ago
        Maybe, but that’s speculation, and others have won fair use claims. The decision in this case explicitly cited the defendant’s lack of effort to control their loaned copies while being aware of infringement.
        endisneigh 4y ago
        who is doing anything even remotely similar that won fair use claims?
        dahart 4y ago
        I didn’t claim similar, and it seems like we’re losing the point here. Mine is that your claim at the top, that the problem had to do with having two copies, actually has nothing to do with why they lost. The problem, as the judge described, is that they didn’t put the “C” in CDL, and looked the other way when then knew it was missing, and then tried to claim fair use for something that clearly isn’t fair use. They didn’t lose because the judge is being pedantic about how many copies there are, they lost because they’re actually squarely violating existing copyright law.

benatkin 4y ago

[dead]

hackernewds 4y ago

This makes logical sense. Pay for one, lend one.

jrmg 4y ago
The ruling discusses this (at length!) and concludes that even a buy-one-physical-lend-one-digital scheme would not be acceptable under current law.

criddell 4y ago

Do you think it would have made a difference if they bought three copies of the book and then shredded two of them? That way they would have the original they scanned, their digital version they copy to lend, and the loaned digital copy.

endisneigh 4y ago
No, because they still wouldn’t be lending out what was bought.

dahart 4y ago

No, that’s not why they lost. The reason is because they effectively lend it to many people simultaneously, and implement no controls on getting it “returned” (deleted) by the people they lent it to, while even being aware that some of them don’t “return” it. The technicality that they keep a copy of the book while it’s being lent isn’t really at issue here at all. It’s not because there are two copies, it’s because there are three or more copies, given to two or more parties at the same time. It has become “distribution” in the eyes of copyright law, beyond the lending analogy.

endisneigh 4y ago
Even if they did what you described they would still lose. There would be no way to implement a control to prevent an additional simultaneous copy. It's not a technical issue, it's simple impossible inherently. I don't know why companies keep trying this. MP3.com, Aereo, etc. The precedent is clear.
- dahart 4y ago
  The question isn’t whether it’s technically possible, the question is whether they even tried, and one of the reasons they lost is not just because they didn’t try at all, they instead looked the other way when they knew the borrowers didn’t “return” the book.
  - endisneigh 4y ago
    my point is that even if they did try, the outcome would've been the same and CDL was doomed from the beginning. their inane emergency CDL plan simply accelerated this outcome
    - dahart 4y ago
      Maybe, but that’s speculation, and others have won fair use claims. The decision in this case explicitly cited the defendant’s lack of effort to control their loaned copies while being aware of infringement.
      - endisneigh 4y ago
        who is doing anything even remotely similar that won fair use claims?
        dahart 4y ago
        I didn’t claim similar, and it seems like we’re losing the point here. Mine is that your claim at the top, that the problem had to do with having two copies, actually has nothing to do with why they lost. The problem, as the judge described, is that they didn’t put the “C” in CDL, and looked the other way when then knew it was missing, and then tried to claim fair use for something that clearly isn’t fair use. They didn’t lose because the judge is being pedantic about how many copies there are, they lost because they’re actually squarely violating existing copyright law.