4 ms·

IA seems to be arguing that society needs a way to archive and access all printed works. The library model is one that has a long history and is therefore help

IA seems to be arguing that society needs a way to archive and access all printed works. The library model is one that has a long history and is therefore helpful as a way to accomplish that mission. The “controlled” part of controlled digital lending is only there as a way to try to appease rights-holders (who would otherwise argue in court that there should be no lending, only licensing (or not) under their complete control). The unfortunate thing that happened is they decided upon themselves to freely and openly distribute copyrighted works at scale which is clearly prohibited and confirmed by precedent. This is the point that they should lose. No library is allowed to reprint books in full and simply hand them out to people who ask.

Supermancho 2y ago
> which is clearly prohibited and confirmed by precedent The "precedent" (pro copyright enforcement) has had unintended consequences to prior precendence (freedom of press...the literal printing press). Ignoring the battlefield of the limits of free speech is not constructive. Talking about past legal cases is not going to help in rolling back the dystopian eventuality.
AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> No library is allowed to reprint books in full and simply hand them out to people who ask. It's obvious that they should not be allowed to do this perpetually or under normal circumstances. Why should they not be allowed to do it temporarily in an emergency? What existing case specifically addresses this?
- Scion9066 2y ago
  It's not what case specifically addresses how it should be handled in an emergency but rather that there is no exception in copyright law for emergencies like a pandemic. If there's not an exception allowing a library to make unlimited copies during an emergency, they can't do it. It can be argued that there should be one added to the law but it doesn't change the fact that the IA clearly violated copyright laws when they lifted their Controlled Digital Lending restrictions.

Supermancho 2y ago

> which is clearly prohibited and confirmed by precedent The "precedent" (pro copyright enforcement) has had unintended consequences to prior precendence (freedom of press...the literal printing press). Ignoring the battlefield of the limits of free speech is not constructive. Talking about past legal cases is not going to help in rolling back the dystopian eventuality.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

> No library is allowed to reprint books in full and simply hand them out to people who ask. It's obvious that they should not be allowed to do this perpetually or under normal circumstances. Why should they not be allowed to do it temporarily in an emergency? What existing case specifically addresses this?

Scion9066 2y ago
It's not what case specifically addresses how it should be handled in an emergency but rather that there is no exception in copyright law for emergencies like a pandemic. If there's not an exception allowing a library to make unlimited copies during an emergency, they can't do it. It can be argued that there should be one added to the law but it doesn't change the fact that the IA clearly violated copyright laws when they lifted their Controlled Digital Lending restrictions.