4 ms·
It was through lending, this was due to a change of policy of lending during COVID-19 to ease access
by a1o 2y ago
It was through lending, this was due to a change of policy of lending during COVID-19 to ease access
- TylerE 2y agoIt lending done flagrantly in violation of the licensing. They were taking a copy licensed to be lent ONCE and giving it to thousands of people at once.
- wrs 2y agoYou’re confusing the COVID “emergency lending” period (which was highly dubious, I agree) with their normal lending system. They track borrows against physical copies of the books stored in their warehouse. Typically you can only borrow a book for one hour before having to renew in the viewer.
- badlibrarian 2y agoUnder discovery in the case it turned out that nope, they weren't doing that right either.
- wrs 2y agoTrue, but the judge's conclusion was "Even full enforcement of a one-to-one owned-to-loaned ratio . . . would not excuse IA’s reproduction of the Works in Suit." So even if they had done it right, this wouldn't have gone their way.
- ladidahh 2y agotheir lending scheme is timed by hour with the option to renew with some restraints, it is not lending to thousands at once
- TylerE 2y agoThen why did they just get their ass royally handed to them in court?
- wrs 2y agoBecause they didn’t pay publishers for separate “ebook” licenses.
- Sakos 2y agoBecause the justice and political systems, particularly in regards to copyright, are deeply corrupt.
- lukasb 2y agoBecause publishers are assholes.
- zx8080 2y agoAre all "rich monopolists" the same?
- jachee 2y agoBecause billion-dollar capitalist rent-seeking bullies got their panties in a wad and threatened to bankrupt them with legal fees that the bullies wouldn’t even feel if they lost. And the archive is just a non-profit that were offering a not-for-profit service for the betterment of society, with literally zero actual negative consequences.
- greyface- 2y agoTrying to normalize a DRM system is not advancing the betterment of society. If IA wanted to be pro-social scofflaws, they should have published DRM-free epubs/PDFs/etc for download, copyright law be damned. If they wanted to be law-abiding, they should have declined to offer this service, and informed users of the existence of shadow libraries.
- jrmg 2y agoSerious answer: it was judged that the act of scanning and delivering the book was ‘copying’ it - which copyright laws say they need permission to do. The whole ‘we only let one person at a time read it’ thing was deemed to be irrelevant. Note that I’m not commenting on whether a reasonable person would also interpret copyright law this way, or on whether the laws are fair, just what the judgment was.
- mike_d 2y ago> taking a copy licensed I'm curious what license applies when I buy a physical book, as a library does? Do you have a resource where I could learn more?
- riffic 2y agodoctrine of first sale, it's a really interesting concept in the United States at least. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine