4 ms·

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 t

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 2y 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 2y 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 2y ago
  this law is out of date and silly. one of the primary purposes of making digital copies is to have infinite copies, and everyone knows that. [Request to delete that law submitted]
yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
I don't think so? I was saying that the library buys a paper book, scans it, and destroys the original, leaving them with a digital copy. I think (seriously, IANAL) that conversion process is legal because you start with 1 copy and end with 1 copy. The thing the Internet Archive is in trouble for is taking 1 copy and giving it to multiple people at once (effectively, start with 1 copy, end with >1 copy) which is probably a legal problem.
- navane 2y ago
  I have lent books from IA, they only loan out to one person at a time. You have to renew your lending every ninety minutes or so.
  - gs17 2y ago
    This was about the "National Emergency Library" which ran for a while in 2020. After the publishers came after them, they returned to only having 1:1 lending.
    - navane 2y ago
      Thank you. I admit I was reading this thread a bit nonplussed.
    - pgalvin 2y ago
      It’s actually about both. The unlimited lending provoked the lawsuit, but the lawsuit seeks to establish a precedent against 1-to-1 lending too.
- shadowgovt 2y ago
  It's hard to make headway in copyright law trying to reason like a regular human being. Copyright is an artificial constraint on something that is otherwise constrained only by cost of raw inputs and machine labor (even back in the days of setting the lead by hand)... And in that sense, not very constrained at all. The whole thing is an artifice that tries to encourage creation of novel work by couching monopoly on ideas in property law. This leaves you with a quantum beast that mostly runs on "vibes." To your example: no, illegal, because you made a copy, right there, when you format-shifted. Or yes, because you preserved the total number of instances. Or no, because you moved a tangible format that is easy to preserve singularity on to a hard-to-audit, easy-to-copy format, thus greatly increasing the risk of copyright fiolation. Or yes, because you actually recorded the fact of the position of the ink on the paper in your original copy, and you can't copyright facts ("this is a historical record of what my book looked like"). Or... Copyright is a ball of string and chewing gum held together by a few explicit laws and many, many centuries of precedent. It's very hard to predict what the end result of a lawsuit in novel territory will be, because it really does come down to "Which faction do the judges think should have more power today?"

Dalewyn 2y 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 2y 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 2y ago
this law is out of date and silly. one of the primary purposes of making digital copies is to have infinite copies, and everyone knows that. [Request to delete that law submitted]

yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago

I don't think so? I was saying that the library buys a paper book, scans it, and destroys the original, leaving them with a digital copy. I think (seriously, IANAL) that conversion process is legal because you start with 1 copy and end with 1 copy. The thing the Internet Archive is in trouble for is taking 1 copy and giving it to multiple people at once (effectively, start with 1 copy, end with >1 copy) which is probably a legal problem.

navane 2y ago
I have lent books from IA, they only loan out to one person at a time. You have to renew your lending every ninety minutes or so.
- gs17 2y ago
  This was about the "National Emergency Library" which ran for a while in 2020. After the publishers came after them, they returned to only having 1:1 lending.
  - navane 2y ago
    Thank you. I admit I was reading this thread a bit nonplussed.
  - pgalvin 2y ago
    It’s actually about both. The unlimited lending provoked the lawsuit, but the lawsuit seeks to establish a precedent against 1-to-1 lending too.
shadowgovt 2y ago
It's hard to make headway in copyright law trying to reason like a regular human being. Copyright is an artificial constraint on something that is otherwise constrained only by cost of raw inputs and machine labor (even back in the days of setting the lead by hand)... And in that sense, not very constrained at all. The whole thing is an artifice that tries to encourage creation of novel work by couching monopoly on ideas in property law. This leaves you with a quantum beast that mostly runs on "vibes." To your example: no, illegal, because you made a copy, right there, when you format-shifted. Or yes, because you preserved the total number of instances. Or no, because you moved a tangible format that is easy to preserve singularity on to a hard-to-audit, easy-to-copy format, thus greatly increasing the risk of copyright fiolation. Or yes, because you actually recorded the fact of the position of the ink on the paper in your original copy, and you can't copyright facts ("this is a historical record of what my book looked like"). Or... Copyright is a ball of string and chewing gum held together by a few explicit laws and many, many centuries of precedent. It's very hard to predict what the end result of a lawsuit in novel territory will be, because it really does come down to "Which faction do the judges think should have more power today?"