2 ms·

The article makes it sound like digital lending is one at a time, so it falls squarely under how libraries are authorized to work. Thus, it's not at all straigh

The article makes it sound like digital lending is one at a time, so it falls squarely under how libraries are authorized to work. Thus, it's not at all straightforward that digital lending violates copyright law.

realusername 2y ago
If libraries weren't older than the copyright system, they would be banned as well nowadays with the extreme laws in place.
- ProjectArcturis 2y ago
  The very idea of a library would be mocked as a ridiculous utopian fantasy.
- _factor 2y ago
  Very accurate. We now have this magic technology that can duplicate books we had no problem lending for free when we were physically constrained. Now that we’ve advanced, we still use archaic constructs to artificially limit information. It’s a sad state.
  - jfengel 2y ago
    We have a magic technology that duplicates books, but we don't yet have one that writes books. At least not ones worth reading. Maybe LLMs will eventually make the profession of writing obsolete. We'd make books too cheap to meter.
  - mistrial9 2y ago
    "One conversation centered on the ever accelerating progress of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue" 1958 Stanislaw Ulam wrote (in reference to a conversation with John von Neumann)
pie_flavor 2y ago
'One at a time' is not how 'libraries are authorized to work'. There are specific additional permissions granted to libraries[0]. They have nothing to do with making and distributing arbitrarily many copies of a work, regardless of whether the previous recipient claims to have deleted it before the next person receives it - libraries are permitted to make one copy, or in some cases three - and the suit is primarily about the period where IA enforced no such restriction in the first place. It is very straightforward that making and distributing copies is infringement without specific permission to do so or some specific legal carveout. Characterizing making many copies as sort of the same thing as having one copy which you move around may be how you treat it morally, but it certainly isn't how the law works. [0]: https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#108 https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#108
- rpdillon 2y ago
  Kind of weird to remove a bunch of books from a library that has controlled digital lending as punishment for a period of time where they removed those controls. If there was damage during the time they removed the controls, then that's worth talking about. But they effectively work like any other library today (they buy a copy, digitize it, and then lend out the digital copy one at a time just like the physical work), so I don't see how removing books really helps anybody. I think the misunderstanding is whether or not IA is making many copies or not. My impression is that they are not.
  - pie_flavor 2y ago
    I do not know how you would end up with that impression, because for each person who downloads a copy, the IA has made a copy. Regarding the removal of books, if they were licensed to the IA in a way that allows for 'digital lending', and the IA then violates that license agreement, then the IA no longer has the license and cannot anymore do 'digital lending'. And if they weren't licensed to the IA in such a way, then they're making and distributing copies without a license to do so, which is copyright infringement.
    - rpdillon 2y ago

realusername 2y ago

If libraries weren't older than the copyright system, they would be banned as well nowadays with the extreme laws in place.

ProjectArcturis 2y ago
The very idea of a library would be mocked as a ridiculous utopian fantasy.
_factor 2y ago
Very accurate. We now have this magic technology that can duplicate books we had no problem lending for free when we were physically constrained. Now that we’ve advanced, we still use archaic constructs to artificially limit information. It’s a sad state.
- jfengel 2y ago
  We have a magic technology that duplicates books, but we don't yet have one that writes books. At least not ones worth reading. Maybe LLMs will eventually make the profession of writing obsolete. We'd make books too cheap to meter.
- mistrial9 2y ago
  "One conversation centered on the ever accelerating progress of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue" 1958 Stanislaw Ulam wrote (in reference to a conversation with John von Neumann)

pie_flavor 2y ago

'One at a time' is not how 'libraries are authorized to work'. There are specific additional permissions granted to libraries[0]. They have nothing to do with making and distributing arbitrarily many copies of a work, regardless of whether the previous recipient claims to have deleted it before the next person receives it - libraries are permitted to make one copy, or in some cases three - and the suit is primarily about the period where IA enforced no such restriction in the first place. It is very straightforward that making and distributing copies is infringement without specific permission to do so or some specific legal carveout. Characterizing making many copies as sort of the same thing as having one copy which you move around may be how you treat it morally, but it certainly isn't how the law works. [0]: https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#108 https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#108

rpdillon 2y ago
Kind of weird to remove a bunch of books from a library that has controlled digital lending as punishment for a period of time where they removed those controls. If there was damage during the time they removed the controls, then that's worth talking about. But they effectively work like any other library today (they buy a copy, digitize it, and then lend out the digital copy one at a time just like the physical work), so I don't see how removing books really helps anybody. I think the misunderstanding is whether or not IA is making many copies or not. My impression is that they are not.
- pie_flavor 2y ago
  I do not know how you would end up with that impression, because for each person who downloads a copy, the IA has made a copy. Regarding the removal of books, if they were licensed to the IA in a way that allows for 'digital lending', and the IA then violates that license agreement, then the IA no longer has the license and cannot anymore do 'digital lending'. And if they weren't licensed to the IA in such a way, then they're making and distributing copies without a license to do so, which is copyright infringement.
  - rpdillon 2y ago