4 ms·

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 ar

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
this law is out of date and silly.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]

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

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]