7 ms·

> While there are many types of licenses, the most common license needs to be purchased and then re-purchased every year. Forcing libraries to repurchase their

by teeray 3y ago

> While there are many types of licenses, the most common license needs to be purchased and then re-purchased every year. Forcing libraries to repurchase their entire collection every year should be illegal. I would also settle for a loophole that would allow the library to OCR a physical copy they own and then own the resulting digital copy.

evmar 3y ago
Does this mean they library can also "give up" their licenses once a book becomes less popular? (This is still worse than the system for physical books, but at least it lets them dial back the rent over time.)
- yosito 3y ago
  This would be terrible for libraries' abilities to keep archives of old books. What would be better is for less popular books to have cheaper (free) licenses for libraries.
koolba 3y ago
> Forcing libraries to repurchase their entire collection every year should be illegal. We could have public libraries be entirely outside the copyright system. I doubt it’d have a material effect on production of new books. If as a society we have a problem that our libraries are too popular, then that’s probably a good thing. > I would also settle for a loophole that would allow the library to OCR a physical copy they own and then own the resulting digital copy. Something about this reminds me of that company with the thousands of tiny antennas that got sued to oblivion.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  The much, much simpler, cheaper, and broad solution is to reduce copyright length to 10 years. Or even 15 years.
  - int_19h 3y ago
    To be honest, I'm not even sure that long makes sense. The point of copyright is to encourage creation of content. But do we actually have a problem with too little content being created these days? If anything, it's the opposite - there's an overabundance of content, to the point where the actual problem is finding the real gems in this firehose (and this does not correlate with price or popularity at all). Maybe it's time to just drop the whole thing altogether. It does mean that the only people who will write books then will be the ones who either enjoy it as a hobby, or feel very strongly about saying something. And I'm pretty sure that this will still result in more content being created than there is actual demand for.
  - thayne 3y ago
    And while we are at it, make it so if a work goes out of "print", then the copyright expires.
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    > much, much simpler, cheaper, and broad you left out "politically doable." There's a good reason why copyright law is as f&cked up as it is: it's the major holders of copyrights now.
    - Animats 3y ago
      It might be do-able now. Today, distributors of content (Google, Facebook, etc) have more political clout than copyright holders. Go for, say 25 years with no formalities. For 25 to 50 years, you have to file a copyright registration with the Library of Congress and pay a modest fee. For 50 to 100 years, you have to pay a huge fee (millions), just so a few classic movies people will still pay for can have coverage, and some famous music that still generates revenue can be covered.
- phantomathkg 3y ago
  > We could have public libraries be entirely outside the copyright system. I doubt it’d have a material effect on production of new books. I really wish this could be the case, but I strongly doubt, which ever country we are in, the politicians we voted in will be on our sides.
- jonhohle 3y ago
  > We could have public libraries be entirely outside the copyright system. As I mentioned in a sibling comment, extending the right of first sale to digital goods would benefit everyone without requiring a special exception for libraries.
- Animats 3y ago
  > We could have public libraries be entirely outside the copyright system. The Bibliothèque Nationale de France has, I think, such an exemption.
  - ravetcofx 3y ago
    Any reading on this phenomenon with Bibliothèque Nationale de France in English? Sounds like old school copyleft
- eiiot 3y ago
  > We could have public libraries be entirely outside the copyright system. Where is the line between this and something along the lines of libgen? I’ve been using distributed libraries for years and haven’t paid for a textbook once…
- vel0city 3y ago
  > I doubt it’d have a material effect on production of new books. The fact I can just wait to checkout a lot of books I'd otherwise buy digitally massively cuts back on me buying books in the end. I practically don't even subscribe to magazines anymore because it's so easy and free to just check them out on Libby. I just went on a long road trip and had tons of hours of audiobooks digitally delivered for zero cost up front. Obviously I'm just N = 2 (my wife is the same) but I imagine some decent chunk of potential book sales are similar.
  - Terr_ 3y ago
    In addition to the not-buying part, there's also (A) where do I find room to store this and (B) who can I lend this to when I'm not using it and (C) how do I get it back when they're done, etc. Thankfully, the local library is a traditional American institution ready and capable of doing that for myself and others in my community.
  - odysseus 3y ago
    > zero cost up front I guess it depends on when you pay your property tax bill (or when your landlord does). I know I pay over $200/year in taxes to the local library, so my family tries to make heavy use of the place.
jonhohle 3y ago
My opinion is that right of first sale should extend to digital goods and if publishers provide no legal means to lend or transfer works from one to another than the owner should be able to do so by whatever means they choose. Legally this would require owners to destroy any copies they may have made, no different from other digital works (e.g. compact discs). This would immediately cover libraries who would gain the benefit of having a collection which is not consumable (library books are good for 20-30 checkouts) and could remain a public good. I'm surprised we've made it this far into the digital age without more consumer protection in this space. PC game companies eliminated secondary markets 20 years ago and that model has expanded to nearly all other media.
anamax 3y ago
> I would also settle for a loophole that would allow the library to OCR a physical copy they own and then own the resulting digital copy. That was what the Internet Archive was doing. They got sued and the last I heard, had lost at every level. That said, I don't know that the lawsuits are over yet. To be clear, no one claims that IA digitally lent out more copies than it physically had. The publishers argued that IA couldn't make a digital copy and lend that instead of the physical copy.
- Terr_ 3y ago
  Latest I can find on that is: > [2024-04-19] Today, the Internet Archive has taken a decisive final step in our ongoing battle for libraries’ digital rights by submitting the final appellate reply brief [PDF] in Hachette v. Internet Archive, the publishers’ lawsuit against our library. https://blog.archive.org/2024/04/19/internet-archive-stands-firm-on-library-digital-rights-in-final-brief-of-hachette-v-internet-archive-lawsuit/ https://blog.archive.org/2024/04/19/internet-archive-stands-...
- iapark 3y ago
  From Wikipedia: “Furthermore, they argued that the Internet Archive was not abiding by CDL, as it had acknowledged that its partner libraries were not always withdrawing their physical copies from their shelves.” Are you sure no one argued they weren’t lending more books than they had? Specifically during the pandemic it is true that just kind of decided that it was probably the case that there were plenty of library books not being distributed (note books they didn’t own) so it was ok to loan basically as many copies as they wanted
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

by teeray 3y ago

evmar 3y ago

Does this mean they library can also "give up" their licenses once a book becomes less popular? (This is still worse than the system for physical books, but at least it lets them dial back the rent over time.)

yosito 3y ago
This would be terrible for libraries' abilities to keep archives of old books. What would be better is for less popular books to have cheaper (free) licenses for libraries.

koolba 3y ago

> Forcing libraries to repurchase their entire collection every year should be illegal. We could have public libraries be entirely outside the copyright system. I doubt it’d have a material effect on production of new books. If as a society we have a problem that our libraries are too popular, then that’s probably a good thing. > I would also settle for a loophole that would allow the library to OCR a physical copy they own and then own the resulting digital copy. Something about this reminds me of that company with the thousands of tiny antennas that got sued to oblivion.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
The much, much simpler, cheaper, and broad solution is to reduce copyright length to 10 years. Or even 15 years.
- int_19h 3y ago
  To be honest, I'm not even sure that long makes sense. The point of copyright is to encourage creation of content. But do we actually have a problem with too little content being created these days? If anything, it's the opposite - there's an overabundance of content, to the point where the actual problem is finding the real gems in this firehose (and this does not correlate with price or popularity at all). Maybe it's time to just drop the whole thing altogether. It does mean that the only people who will write books then will be the ones who either enjoy it as a hobby, or feel very strongly about saying something. And I'm pretty sure that this will still result in more content being created than there is actual demand for.
- thayne 3y ago
  And while we are at it, make it so if a work goes out of "print", then the copyright expires.
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  > much, much simpler, cheaper, and broad you left out "politically doable." There's a good reason why copyright law is as f&cked up as it is: it's the major holders of copyrights now.
  - Animats 3y ago
    It might be do-able now. Today, distributors of content (Google, Facebook, etc) have more political clout than copyright holders. Go for, say 25 years with no formalities. For 25 to 50 years, you have to file a copyright registration with the Library of Congress and pay a modest fee. For 50 to 100 years, you have to pay a huge fee (millions), just so a few classic movies people will still pay for can have coverage, and some famous music that still generates revenue can be covered.
phantomathkg 3y ago
> We could have public libraries be entirely outside the copyright system. I doubt it’d have a material effect on production of new books. I really wish this could be the case, but I strongly doubt, which ever country we are in, the politicians we voted in will be on our sides.
jonhohle 3y ago
> We could have public libraries be entirely outside the copyright system. As I mentioned in a sibling comment, extending the right of first sale to digital goods would benefit everyone without requiring a special exception for libraries.
Animats 3y ago
> We could have public libraries be entirely outside the copyright system. The Bibliothèque Nationale de France has, I think, such an exemption.
- ravetcofx 3y ago
  Any reading on this phenomenon with Bibliothèque Nationale de France in English? Sounds like old school copyleft
eiiot 3y ago
> We could have public libraries be entirely outside the copyright system. Where is the line between this and something along the lines of libgen? I’ve been using distributed libraries for years and haven’t paid for a textbook once…
vel0city 3y ago
> I doubt it’d have a material effect on production of new books. The fact I can just wait to checkout a lot of books I'd otherwise buy digitally massively cuts back on me buying books in the end. I practically don't even subscribe to magazines anymore because it's so easy and free to just check them out on Libby. I just went on a long road trip and had tons of hours of audiobooks digitally delivered for zero cost up front. Obviously I'm just N = 2 (my wife is the same) but I imagine some decent chunk of potential book sales are similar.
- Terr_ 3y ago
  In addition to the not-buying part, there's also (A) where do I find room to store this and (B) who can I lend this to when I'm not using it and (C) how do I get it back when they're done, etc. Thankfully, the local library is a traditional American institution ready and capable of doing that for myself and others in my community.
- odysseus 3y ago
  > zero cost up front I guess it depends on when you pay your property tax bill (or when your landlord does). I know I pay over $200/year in taxes to the local library, so my family tries to make heavy use of the place.

jonhohle 3y ago

My opinion is that right of first sale should extend to digital goods and if publishers provide no legal means to lend or transfer works from one to another than the owner should be able to do so by whatever means they choose. Legally this would require owners to destroy any copies they may have made, no different from other digital works (e.g. compact discs). This would immediately cover libraries who would gain the benefit of having a collection which is not consumable (library books are good for 20-30 checkouts) and could remain a public good. I'm surprised we've made it this far into the digital age without more consumer protection in this space. PC game companies eliminated secondary markets 20 years ago and that model has expanded to nearly all other media.

anamax 3y ago

> I would also settle for a loophole that would allow the library to OCR a physical copy they own and then own the resulting digital copy. That was what the Internet Archive was doing. They got sued and the last I heard, had lost at every level. That said, I don't know that the lawsuits are over yet. To be clear, no one claims that IA digitally lent out more copies than it physically had. The publishers argued that IA couldn't make a digital copy and lend that instead of the physical copy.

Terr_ 3y ago
Latest I can find on that is: > [2024-04-19] Today, the Internet Archive has taken a decisive final step in our ongoing battle for libraries’ digital rights by submitting the final appellate reply brief [PDF] in Hachette v. Internet Archive, the publishers’ lawsuit against our library. https://blog.archive.org/2024/04/19/internet-archive-stands-firm-on-library-digital-rights-in-final-brief-of-hachette-v-internet-archive-lawsuit/ https://blog.archive.org/2024/04/19/internet-archive-stands-...
iapark 3y ago
From Wikipedia: “Furthermore, they argued that the Internet Archive was not abiding by CDL, as it had acknowledged that its partner libraries were not always withdrawing their physical copies from their shelves.” Are you sure no one argued they weren’t lending more books than they had? Specifically during the pandemic it is true that just kind of decided that it was probably the case that there were plenty of library books not being distributed (note books they didn’t own) so it was ok to loan basically as many copies as they wanted

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]