4 ms·

'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 m

'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
    We're using different defintions of copy, and that's not an interesting discussion. For the rest, we're having different conversations. I'm not concerned with the law as much as I'm concerned about what's good for society in this case.
zerocrates 2y ago
The argument (or at least the main argument) IA is making is that CDL is fair use, so they're analogizing it to the "one at a time" nature inherent to lending of physical books. Of course actual physical lending doesn't involve making a copy and is more of a "first sale doctrine" type situation, so this is just an analogy. This is why there was so much discussion around how this affects the ebook market: that's part of the fair use analysis, and often the most important part. I've generally been of the opinion that CDL doesn't stand much of a chance of flying as fair use, but there's a non-ridiculous argument for it. The period of uncontrolled lending during the pandemic is another matter that's less defensible, but the point of this case for the publishers is to kill "normal" CDL.

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
  We're using different defintions of copy, and that's not an interesting discussion. For the rest, we're having different conversations. I'm not concerned with the law as much as I'm concerned about what's good for society in this case.

zerocrates 2y ago

The argument (or at least the main argument) IA is making is that CDL is fair use, so they're analogizing it to the "one at a time" nature inherent to lending of physical books. Of course actual physical lending doesn't involve making a copy and is more of a "first sale doctrine" type situation, so this is just an analogy. This is why there was so much discussion around how this affects the ebook market: that's part of the fair use analysis, and often the most important part. I've generally been of the opinion that CDL doesn't stand much of a chance of flying as fair use, but there's a non-ridiculous argument for it. The period of uncontrolled lending during the pandemic is another matter that's less defensible, but the point of this case for the publishers is to kill "normal" CDL.