2 ms·

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 t

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.
xuto3 4y ago
Again, speaking about the wider CDL initiative (one digital copy lent for each physical copy) and not their National Emergency Library, the Internet Archive do implement a DRM on that digital copy, so for the reader to make additional copies of it is not trivial. Regardless, from where do you get a requirement to prevent (with 100% certainty) the reader from making additional copies? When a person borrows a physical book from a library, they could photocopy the entire thing, then return the book they borrowed to the library and still have an additional copy that they made. Does that make library lending illegal? How is that something that can be blamed on the library in the first place?

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.

xuto3 4y ago

Again, speaking about the wider CDL initiative (one digital copy lent for each physical copy) and not their National Emergency Library, the Internet Archive do implement a DRM on that digital copy, so for the reader to make additional copies of it is not trivial. Regardless, from where do you get a requirement to prevent (with 100% certainty) the reader from making additional copies? When a person borrows a physical book from a library, they could photocopy the entire thing, then return the book they borrowed to the library and still have an additional copy that they made. Does that make library lending illegal? How is that something that can be blamed on the library in the first place?