4 ms·
The headline isn't mentioned in the opinion piece? What the judge ruled was: > An ebook recast from a print book is a paradigmatic example of a derivative work
by suddenclarity 4y ago
The headline isn't mentioned in the opinion piece? What the judge ruled was:
> An ebook recast from a print book is a paradigmatic example of a derivative work.
In other words, if a library buy a book, they can't just digitise it and share it without permission.
- tobyjsullivan 4y agoI'd go so far as to say the article directly contradicts the headline. The author spends an enormous amount of time explaining how the rights of "end users" have been cemented, such as the right to change formats. If a consumer lends a book, they are, by definition, no longer the "end user" and none of that precedent applies. It's probably true that anyone can lend a book but that's not an "end user" right. In fact, that allowance is the very reason libraries can exist in the first place. The case and article are about something completely different (making copies, then distributing the copies). Odd headline.
- westurner 4y ago> that allowance Right to property: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_property https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_property
- JohnFen 4y agoMy understanding is that (in the US), it's legal to make copies of a copyrighted work you legally possess. However, all of the copies must be treated as an indivisible whole. If you sell, lend, or give the work away, you must include all copies along with it (or destroy them).
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y agoThe law under which the suit was bought essentially concerns format-shifting before distribution/lending.
- lupire 4y agoFlag the submission for misinformation trolling