5 ms·

IANAL: Can libraries just buy physical books and then format shift (scan+OCR) them?

by yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago

zaphod12 3y ago
I suspect this is likely a violation of agreements, but regardless it absolutely does not produce a readable ebook
- mdaniel 3y ago
  Agreements of what? I could have sworn the first sale doctrine means that I own the book, as there are for sure no EULAs that I agree to when purchasing nor opening to page 1 of a book. Copyright, for sure, but not an agreement that could be violated I would also take issue with the "absolutely" of your assertion about OCR. For some things, yes, for crazy fonted works, no, but the devil's in the details
  - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
    I believe the idea was that a publisher could have a contract with libraries in order to rent them digital copies that imposes terms against other ways of getting digital copies. (Whether that should be or is legal is a separate question that I'm not going to answer; as ever IANAL.)
tester89 3y ago
No, copyright violation. Libraries are able to loan under the first sale doctrine, that is to say that the copyright holder exhausts their right to control the distribution of a copy after the first sale. However, they retain a monopoly on the production of copies.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  The issue here is whether this counts as the production of copies and/or whether that production is fair use. For example, CDs are digital. To play a CD that you own, the player is going to create a copy of the song in memory in order to decode it into an analog signal that can be played on speakers. Then it's going to discard that temporary copy, leaving the CD as the only permanent one. It seems pretty obvious that either that sort of temporary copy doesn't count or that it should be fair use. But then how is it any different if the temporary copy is on your tablet instead of your CD player?
pgalvin 3y ago
That is quite literally what this lawsuit is trying to establish as illegal (it was a grey area before). Many people misunderstand and think it is just about the temporary unlimited lending. It was motivated by that, but went further.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  As far as I can tell, the book publishers are merely seeking to have 17 U.S. Code § 108, subsection (g) enforced. The law[1] makes it clear public libraries are permitted to make one digital copy and distribute it (lend it) once at a time on separate occasions. Subsection (g) outlines that distributing that one copy multiple times simultaneously forfeits the protections granted by this law. [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/108 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/108
  - JackC 3y ago
    § 108 doesn't apply here, in either direction. See footnote 6 of the lower court decision, where the court notes that the Internet Archive doesn't rely on § 108, but instead on § 107 covering fair use, and also notes that § 108 doesn't restrict fair use by libraries: 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... The reason IA doesn't rely on § 108 is "When a user requests a copy of an entire work or a substantial part thereof, the library or archives must first make a reasonable effort to determine whether a copy can be obtained at a fair price. If it can, then no copy is allowed to be made." https://www.copyright.gov/policy/section108/discussion-document.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/policy/section108/discussion-docum... What you're describing, "public libraries are permitted to make one digital copy and distribute it (lend it) once at a time on separate occasions," is what controlled digital lending refers to, and it would be cool if it was overtly authorized by statute, but it isn't -- the original CDL whitepaper ( https://controlleddigitallending.org/whitepaper/ https://controlleddigitallending.org/whitepaper/ ) relied on fair use instead. The trial court found that it fails that test, so unless IA wins on appeal, it doesn't exist.
  - gooob 3y ago
troupe 3y ago
I think this is a lot less clear than just a yes or no. Imagine you have a library where you can't touch the books so you have to look at them through glass and turn the pages with some type of robotic arm. That probably wouldn't be an issue. What if you replace the glass with a computer monitor? So you are sitting in a room next to the book you are viewing. Then what if you extend the wire and sit in the building next door? What if you replace the wire with the internet? At what point did you start infringing on the copyright? Imagine a video rental service where you can go in, and they will play whatever movie you want on a DVD player in the back room. How long can that wire be between the DVD player and the person watching before it starts being copyright infringement?
- saulpw 3y ago
  > Imagine a video rental service where you can go in, and they will play whatever movie you want on a DVD player in the back room. How long can that wire be between the DVD player and the person watching before it starts being copyright infringement? I imagine it would be when you put a Y on the wire so that two people can watch from two different monitors.
  - paulmd 3y ago
    nope, aereo didn't have a Y in the wire, still found to be infringing. of course this gets to the core of the problem: rights on paper are one thing, but they are easily taken away by a plaintiff with money. if you don't have the money to defend the right, you don't have the right (and in fact stand a good chance of getting the right taken away for everyone else too).
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      Didn't Aereo lose because they were basically found to be a cable company which then subjects them to a specific set of different rules?
      - sp332 3y ago
gooob 3y ago
yes, but apparently the law hasn't been updated to allow for that, and legal people get confused by it. what is it that triggers the process of reviewing and revising/removing an outdated law when an entity breaks it? it's obvious that there could be thousands of laws that were made, that are now out of date because of advances in technology or scientific understanding. so isn't there some regular procedure for, when someone sues someone, allowing for the opportunity to consider if the particular violated law is still applicable? maybe if it hasn't been applied in a while and/or was made a long time ago?
- eep_social 3y ago
  Jury nullification is the closest thing I know of in the US legal system.

IANAL: Can libraries just buy physical books and then format shift (scan+OCR) them?

zaphod12 3y ago

I suspect this is likely a violation of agreements, but regardless it absolutely does not produce a readable ebook

mdaniel 3y ago
Agreements of what? I could have sworn the first sale doctrine means that I own the book, as there are for sure no EULAs that I agree to when purchasing nor opening to page 1 of a book. Copyright, for sure, but not an agreement that could be violated I would also take issue with the "absolutely" of your assertion about OCR. For some things, yes, for crazy fonted works, no, but the devil's in the details
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  I believe the idea was that a publisher could have a contract with libraries in order to rent them digital copies that imposes terms against other ways of getting digital copies. (Whether that should be or is legal is a separate question that I'm not going to answer; as ever IANAL.)

tester89 3y ago

No, copyright violation. Libraries are able to loan under the first sale doctrine, that is to say that the copyright holder exhausts their right to control the distribution of a copy after the first sale. However, they retain a monopoly on the production of copies.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
The issue here is whether this counts as the production of copies and/or whether that production is fair use. For example, CDs are digital. To play a CD that you own, the player is going to create a copy of the song in memory in order to decode it into an analog signal that can be played on speakers. Then it's going to discard that temporary copy, leaving the CD as the only permanent one. It seems pretty obvious that either that sort of temporary copy doesn't count or that it should be fair use. But then how is it any different if the temporary copy is on your tablet instead of your CD player?

pgalvin 3y ago

That is quite literally what this lawsuit is trying to establish as illegal (it was a grey area before). Many people misunderstand and think it is just about the temporary unlimited lending. It was motivated by that, but went further.

Dalewyn 3y ago
As far as I can tell, the book publishers are merely seeking to have 17 U.S. Code § 108, subsection (g) enforced. The law[1] makes it clear public libraries are permitted to make one digital copy and distribute it (lend it) once at a time on separate occasions. Subsection (g) outlines that distributing that one copy multiple times simultaneously forfeits the protections granted by this law. [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/108 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/108
- JackC 3y ago
  § 108 doesn't apply here, in either direction. See footnote 6 of the lower court decision, where the court notes that the Internet Archive doesn't rely on § 108, but instead on § 107 covering fair use, and also notes that § 108 doesn't restrict fair use by libraries: 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... The reason IA doesn't rely on § 108 is "When a user requests a copy of an entire work or a substantial part thereof, the library or archives must first make a reasonable effort to determine whether a copy can be obtained at a fair price. If it can, then no copy is allowed to be made." https://www.copyright.gov/policy/section108/discussion-document.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/policy/section108/discussion-docum... What you're describing, "public libraries are permitted to make one digital copy and distribute it (lend it) once at a time on separate occasions," is what controlled digital lending refers to, and it would be cool if it was overtly authorized by statute, but it isn't -- the original CDL whitepaper ( https://controlleddigitallending.org/whitepaper/ https://controlleddigitallending.org/whitepaper/ ) relied on fair use instead. The trial court found that it fails that test, so unless IA wins on appeal, it doesn't exist.
- gooob 3y ago

troupe 3y ago

I think this is a lot less clear than just a yes or no. Imagine you have a library where you can't touch the books so you have to look at them through glass and turn the pages with some type of robotic arm. That probably wouldn't be an issue. What if you replace the glass with a computer monitor? So you are sitting in a room next to the book you are viewing. Then what if you extend the wire and sit in the building next door? What if you replace the wire with the internet? At what point did you start infringing on the copyright? Imagine a video rental service where you can go in, and they will play whatever movie you want on a DVD player in the back room. How long can that wire be between the DVD player and the person watching before it starts being copyright infringement?

saulpw 3y ago
> Imagine a video rental service where you can go in, and they will play whatever movie you want on a DVD player in the back room. How long can that wire be between the DVD player and the person watching before it starts being copyright infringement? I imagine it would be when you put a Y on the wire so that two people can watch from two different monitors.
- paulmd 3y ago
  nope, aereo didn't have a Y in the wire, still found to be infringing. of course this gets to the core of the problem: rights on paper are one thing, but they are easily taken away by a plaintiff with money. if you don't have the money to defend the right, you don't have the right (and in fact stand a good chance of getting the right taken away for everyone else too).
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    Didn't Aereo lose because they were basically found to be a cable company which then subjects them to a specific set of different rules?
    - sp332 3y ago

gooob 3y ago

yes, but apparently the law hasn't been updated to allow for that, and legal people get confused by it. what is it that triggers the process of reviewing and revising/removing an outdated law when an entity breaks it? it's obvious that there could be thousands of laws that were made, that are now out of date because of advances in technology or scientific understanding. so isn't there some regular procedure for, when someone sues someone, allowing for the opportunity to consider if the particular violated law is still applicable? maybe if it hasn't been applied in a while and/or was made a long time ago?

eep_social 3y ago
Jury nullification is the closest thing I know of in the US legal system.