3 ms·
As I understand it, other digital libraries buy (license) n digital copies of a book and then never lend to more than n people at once. IA would permit an unli
by burnerthrow008 3y ago
As I understand it, other digital libraries buy (license) n digital copies of a book and then never lend to more than n people at once. IA would permit an unlimited number of people to borrow at once.
- cxr 3y agoThat's not right. Under controlled digital lending, the Internet Archive only allows simultaneous loans up to the number of copies they actually own. The difference between the Internet Archive and other libraries is that the Internet Archive does this with or without the approval of the rightsholders, whereas most other libraries buy in to services from copyright collectives that have negotiated for digital lending from the rightsholders, not unlike performing rights organizations for music or studio catalogs on Netflix.
- didntcheck 3y agoWasn't the whole point that they removed that restriction during the declared "emergency library" period, despite previously doing CDL properly? They were still loaning out DRM'd files, with a limit on the number that a given user could have on loan, but crucially no longer a limit on the number of simultaneous users on a single title. Breaking the whole point of CDL which is to mimic the "move semantics" of a physical item
- cxr 3y agoNo. (That is a thing that happened. It's not relevant here—and definitely not "the whole point"—but it did happen.)
- iudqnolq 3y agoUnfortunately IA falsely inflated the number of copies they permitted themselves to loan out even before they declared the national emergency library. I think controlled digital lending would be beneficial to society so I'm frustrated IA sabotaged it by setting up such bad facts for the court to consider.