3 ms·

Is it crazy? Copyright is the right to make a copy. Libraries can buy and loan books because none of that involves making a copy. Digitizing a book and loaning

Is it crazy? Copyright is the right to make a copy. Libraries can buy and loan books because none of that involves making a copy. Digitizing a book and loaning digital copies does involve making copies, so it's a violation of copyright. Seems very straightforward to me. Am I missing some major detail or catch or something? Sure, there's an exception for "fair use," but I don't think fair use has ever covered making a complete copy of a work and giving it to someone else. And of the four factors judging fair use, the "amount and substantiality of the portion taken" one fails completely here. Doesn't seem surprising.

Dylan16807 4y ago
> Is it crazy? Copyright is the right to make a copy. Libraries can buy and loan books because none of that involves making a copy. Digitizing a book and loaning digital copies does involve making copies, so it's a violation of copyright. Seems very straightforward to me. Am I missing some major detail or catch or something? The problem is that viewing copies that way completely trashes the rights people have for their digital goods. Displaying it is technically a copy. Reselling it is technically a copy. Format shifting is technically a copy. Lending is technically a copy. If I make an ephemeral copy, and keep the original in a vault the entire time the ephemeral copy is loaned out, that should be good enough. (Maybe you want a minimum loan period, details details, but something that works just like a traditional library shouldn't be illegal for digital assets.)
- CobrastanJorji 4y ago
  > the rights people have for their digital goods People don't have any rights to their digital goods. Doesn't exist. They are not. It is wonderful to discuss ideas for how the system SHOULD be. I 100% support a legislated solution for digital ownership of copies of things, with a right to transfer and so on, but that's sadly a hypothetical discussion about what could be.
  - TheCoelacanth 4y ago
    That is insanity that was never envisioned when copyright was created. First-sale doctrine is well established. If you buy a book, you can give it away, sell it or lend it to anyone you want. Those rights should not simply disappear when you start dealing with a digital book.
- stonemetal12 4y ago
  > Displaying it is technically a copy. Format shifting is technically a copy. Both of which are legally not copyright infringement. Have long settled case history etc. >Reselling it is technically a copy. Not really, unless you keep a copy after you sell it.
jacobr1 4y ago
It would be reasonable to allow for the exclusive sharing or transfer of an ebook. Why can't I resell the single-copy (and thus forfeit my own use) or lend it to a friend when done (and again I would be unable to use it when it was lent until returned/timed-out)?
- CobrastanJorji 4y ago
  There's a rich history of this not being "reasonable." That's why Netflix can't stream you a movie because they have a physical DVD of it in a vault. I 100% agree with you that it should be this way but it should not be surprising that it is not.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Even that's not a solution. If Netflix could do that, every DVD you bought would come with a contract in terms of service with no distribution or Landing rights
- suddenclarity 4y ago
  The issue is that digital scales on a whole different level. Imagine I could buy and transfer a 90 min movie. The next person does the same. 10 people across the world could easily watch my copy in 24 hours. That's 3 650 viewers in a year. Now imagine I bought 10 copies. Those 10 copies just replaced 36 500 customers. Apply the same concept to a 3 min song that you listen to once a week.
  - jacobr1 4y ago
    Sure, but I also could just copy it to millions of people. But in this context we are talking about artificially limiting usage. So we could do something like limit sharing to once a day, or month or whatever. No sharing or transfer seems too limited.
  - yencabulator 4y ago
    So, your argument is that busy libraries in big cities have always been "more illegal" than less-visited libraries where the books sit on the shelves more?

Dylan16807 4y ago

> Is it crazy? Copyright is the right to make a copy. Libraries can buy and loan books because none of that involves making a copy. Digitizing a book and loaning digital copies does involve making copies, so it's a violation of copyright. Seems very straightforward to me. Am I missing some major detail or catch or something? The problem is that viewing copies that way completely trashes the rights people have for their digital goods. Displaying it is technically a copy. Reselling it is technically a copy. Format shifting is technically a copy. Lending is technically a copy. If I make an ephemeral copy, and keep the original in a vault the entire time the ephemeral copy is loaned out, that should be good enough. (Maybe you want a minimum loan period, details details, but something that works just like a traditional library shouldn't be illegal for digital assets.)

CobrastanJorji 4y ago
> the rights people have for their digital goods People don't have any rights to their digital goods. Doesn't exist. They are not. It is wonderful to discuss ideas for how the system SHOULD be. I 100% support a legislated solution for digital ownership of copies of things, with a right to transfer and so on, but that's sadly a hypothetical discussion about what could be.
- TheCoelacanth 4y ago
  That is insanity that was never envisioned when copyright was created. First-sale doctrine is well established. If you buy a book, you can give it away, sell it or lend it to anyone you want. Those rights should not simply disappear when you start dealing with a digital book.
stonemetal12 4y ago
> Displaying it is technically a copy. Format shifting is technically a copy. Both of which are legally not copyright infringement. Have long settled case history etc. >Reselling it is technically a copy. Not really, unless you keep a copy after you sell it.

jacobr1 4y ago

It would be reasonable to allow for the exclusive sharing or transfer of an ebook. Why can't I resell the single-copy (and thus forfeit my own use) or lend it to a friend when done (and again I would be unable to use it when it was lent until returned/timed-out)?

CobrastanJorji 4y ago
There's a rich history of this not being "reasonable." That's why Netflix can't stream you a movie because they have a physical DVD of it in a vault. I 100% agree with you that it should be this way but it should not be surprising that it is not.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Even that's not a solution. If Netflix could do that, every DVD you bought would come with a contract in terms of service with no distribution or Landing rights
suddenclarity 4y ago
The issue is that digital scales on a whole different level. Imagine I could buy and transfer a 90 min movie. The next person does the same. 10 people across the world could easily watch my copy in 24 hours. That's 3 650 viewers in a year. Now imagine I bought 10 copies. Those 10 copies just replaced 36 500 customers. Apply the same concept to a 3 min song that you listen to once a week.
- jacobr1 4y ago
  Sure, but I also could just copy it to millions of people. But in this context we are talking about artificially limiting usage. So we could do something like limit sharing to once a day, or month or whatever. No sharing or transfer seems too limited.
- yencabulator 4y ago
  So, your argument is that busy libraries in big cities have always been "more illegal" than less-visited libraries where the books sit on the shelves more?