5 ms·

They were only sued after they launched the Emergency Library. Also, Koeltl's current ruling applies in particular to lending without the waitlist restriction i

by causi 4y ago

They were only sued after they launched the Emergency Library. Also, Koeltl's current ruling applies in particular to lending without the waitlist restriction is legal. CDL in general isn't yet ruled on. IA's actions with the NEL not only prompted the lawsuit in the first place but have almost certainly poisoned the well with regards to the final ruling on CDL.

jrmg 4y ago
Koeltl's current ruling applies in particular to lending without the waitlist restriction is legal. CDL in general isn't yet ruled on. That’s not the case. The decision is clearly written, and clearly about CDL. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.537900/gov.uscourts.nysd.537900.188.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.53...
- causi 4y ago
  Ok, that appears correct. Still, the NEL prompted the suits in the first place and, among other things, proved that when the IA says it cares about the legal rights of publishers and authors it is lying. That's tremendously influential. If CDL had more years to become a regular thing that a significant fraction of people use, it would've had a much better chance in court.
  - jrmg 4y ago
    Yeah, I agree with that. I’m not sure it would really have changed the opinion of the court though. Personally I’d much rather the money being spent on this was spent on a campaign to change copyright law to allow things like CDL rather than implausibly shoehorning what they want to do into the crevices of the current law. It’s an uphill battle, but one that I think might be more likely to succeed in the very long term.
  - matwood 4y ago
    > If CDL had more years to become a regular thing that a significant fraction of people use, it would've had a much better chance in court. Not as implemented by IA. They admit they had zero controls in place for the 'pool' libraries so they likely had books in circulation in both print and digital at the same time. The also had a side for-profit company selling used print books linked from the digital CDL. This case never had a chance.
boomboomsubban 4y ago
>They were only sued after they launched the Emergency Library There is plenty of evidence they were planning this far before the Emergency Library. Like the 2019 press push, https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/libraries/article/79262-could-library-book-scanning-be-headed-back-to-court.html https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/l... > Also, Koeltl's current ruling applies in particular to lending without the waitlist restriction is legal. CDL in general isn't yet ruled on Completely untrue. The entire judgment is about the CDL with the NEL only being mentioned as also being illegal as the CDL already was

by causi 4y ago

jrmg 4y ago

Koeltl's current ruling applies in particular to lending without the waitlist restriction is legal. CDL in general isn't yet ruled on. That’s not the case. The decision is clearly written, and clearly about CDL. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.537900/gov.uscourts.nysd.537900.188.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.53...

causi 4y ago
Ok, that appears correct. Still, the NEL prompted the suits in the first place and, among other things, proved that when the IA says it cares about the legal rights of publishers and authors it is lying. That's tremendously influential. If CDL had more years to become a regular thing that a significant fraction of people use, it would've had a much better chance in court.
- jrmg 4y ago
  Yeah, I agree with that. I’m not sure it would really have changed the opinion of the court though. Personally I’d much rather the money being spent on this was spent on a campaign to change copyright law to allow things like CDL rather than implausibly shoehorning what they want to do into the crevices of the current law. It’s an uphill battle, but one that I think might be more likely to succeed in the very long term.
- matwood 4y ago
  > If CDL had more years to become a regular thing that a significant fraction of people use, it would've had a much better chance in court. Not as implemented by IA. They admit they had zero controls in place for the 'pool' libraries so they likely had books in circulation in both print and digital at the same time. The also had a side for-profit company selling used print books linked from the digital CDL. This case never had a chance.

boomboomsubban 4y ago

>They were only sued after they launched the Emergency Library There is plenty of evidence they were planning this far before the Emergency Library. Like the 2019 press push, https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/libraries/article/79262-could-library-book-scanning-be-headed-back-to-court.html https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/l... > Also, Koeltl's current ruling applies in particular to lending without the waitlist restriction is legal. CDL in general isn't yet ruled on Completely untrue. The entire judgment is about the CDL with the NEL only being mentioned as also being illegal as the CDL already was