2 ms·

>In sum, IA has not met its "burden of proving that the secondary use does not compete in the relevant market" How does this same thing not apply to physical l

>In sum, IA has not met its "burden of proving that the secondary use does not compete in the relevant market" How does this same thing not apply to physical libraries then? Even if the scope were limited to books IA itself owns (which they still denied anyways), why should one-to-one digital lending be any different than physical in-person library book lending?

Aloisius 2y ago
Physical book lending doesn't involve making copies at all, so copyright law doesn't apply. That said, some libraries do lend scans of materials and libraries copying materials on microfilm has been done for ages. Interlibrary loans are done frequently with copies. Hell, the Library of Congress does it.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
pcaharrier 2y ago
Because (at least under current law) that's not quite the same as what libraries are doing as explained here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41448376 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41448376
ghaff 2y ago
I'm not sure I see the problem with one-to-one digital lending modulo the possibility of the reader potentially making copies for essentially free. However, there's a ton of legal precedent for lending out purchased physical copies of things. Certainly there's no precedent for the unlimited lending that triggered the current legal woes. Previously a lot of what the IA didn't really have a legal foundation but mostly slid under the radar because it generally seemed reasonable.
indigovole 2y ago
The physical object can be passed around without copyright coming into play. Copyright law has special provision for interlibrary loan, and archival copies. There is nothing in the law that supports making a digital copy and and using technical safeguards to transfer it to exactly one person at a time - except licensing under the exclusive rights of the rightsholder. Congress could write something into the law to support this kind of digital lending. However, Congress has been largely unable to accomplish anything interesting or innovative for a long time now, outside of a couple of flagship goals for one party or the other. Copyright law hasn't seen a substantial revision since the Act of '75, and ... a few ... things have happened since then. [DMCA added some new provisions for anti-circumvention and for safe harbor, but it didn't add new exemptions that most people care about, or modify the exclusive rights in any way.] The entertainment/publishing industries have usually gotten what they want in past revisions, but by now the tech industry is pretty strongly on the opposite side. It would be interesting to see what kind of crazy-quilt changes got patched together in a significant revision.
- ranger_danger 2y ago
  Ok I didn't think about the fact that a digital scan of a book is technically a copy. So I guess there isn't a good established law on how to handle that, you're right. I was wondering why in the ruling they were even referring to the scanned books as a copy and it just wasn't clicking in my head. Thanks
  - shagie 2y ago
    There is law - its in the carveout and printed above the copiers in a library that stems from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/108 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/108 > The rights of reproduction and distribution under this section extend to the isolated and unrelated reproduction or distribution of a single copy or phonorecord of the same material on separate occasions, but do not extend to cases where the library or archives, or its employee— > is aware or has substantial reason to believe that it is engaging in the related or concerted reproduction or distribution of multiple copies or phonorecords of the same material, whether made on one occasion or over a period of time, and whether intended for aggregate use by one or more individuals or for separate use by the individual members of a group; or > engages in the systematic reproduction or distribution of single or multiple copies or phonorecords of material described in subsection (d): Provided, That nothing in this clause prevents a library or archives from participating in interlibrary arrangements that do not have, as their purpose or effect, that the library or archives receiving such copies or phonorecords for distribution does so in such aggregate quantities as to substitute for a subscription to or purchase of such work. ... > (1) For purposes of this section, during the last 20 years of any term of copyright of a published work, a library or archives, including a nonprofit educational institution that functions as such, may reproduce, distribute, display, or perform in facsimile or digital form a copy or phonorecord of such work, or portions thereof, for purposes of preservation, scholarship, or research, if such library or archives has first determined, on the basis of a reasonable investigation, that none of the conditions set forth in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (2) apply. > (2) No reproduction, distribution, display, or performance is authorized under this subsection if— > (A) the work is subject to normal commercial exploitation; > (B) a copy or phonorecord of the work can be obtained at a reasonable price; or > (C) the copyright owner or its agent provides notice pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Register of Copyrights that either of the conditions set forth in subparagraphs (A) and (B) applies. --- I believe that the covering of scanned / copied materials by a library are fairly well covered, and that Internet Achieve stepped clearly beyond that definition.

Aloisius 2y ago

Physical book lending doesn't involve making copies at all, so copyright law doesn't apply. That said, some libraries do lend scans of materials and libraries copying materials on microfilm has been done for ages. Interlibrary loans are done frequently with copies. Hell, the Library of Congress does it.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

pcaharrier 2y ago

Because (at least under current law) that's not quite the same as what libraries are doing as explained here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41448376 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41448376

ghaff 2y ago

I'm not sure I see the problem with one-to-one digital lending modulo the possibility of the reader potentially making copies for essentially free. However, there's a ton of legal precedent for lending out purchased physical copies of things. Certainly there's no precedent for the unlimited lending that triggered the current legal woes. Previously a lot of what the IA didn't really have a legal foundation but mostly slid under the radar because it generally seemed reasonable.

indigovole 2y ago

The physical object can be passed around without copyright coming into play. Copyright law has special provision for interlibrary loan, and archival copies. There is nothing in the law that supports making a digital copy and and using technical safeguards to transfer it to exactly one person at a time - except licensing under the exclusive rights of the rightsholder. Congress could write something into the law to support this kind of digital lending. However, Congress has been largely unable to accomplish anything interesting or innovative for a long time now, outside of a couple of flagship goals for one party or the other. Copyright law hasn't seen a substantial revision since the Act of '75, and ... a few ... things have happened since then. [DMCA added some new provisions for anti-circumvention and for safe harbor, but it didn't add new exemptions that most people care about, or modify the exclusive rights in any way.] The entertainment/publishing industries have usually gotten what they want in past revisions, but by now the tech industry is pretty strongly on the opposite side. It would be interesting to see what kind of crazy-quilt changes got patched together in a significant revision.

ranger_danger 2y ago
Ok I didn't think about the fact that a digital scan of a book is technically a copy. So I guess there isn't a good established law on how to handle that, you're right. I was wondering why in the ruling they were even referring to the scanned books as a copy and it just wasn't clicking in my head. Thanks
- shagie 2y ago
  There is law - its in the carveout and printed above the copiers in a library that stems from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/108 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/108 > The rights of reproduction and distribution under this section extend to the isolated and unrelated reproduction or distribution of a single copy or phonorecord of the same material on separate occasions, but do not extend to cases where the library or archives, or its employee— > is aware or has substantial reason to believe that it is engaging in the related or concerted reproduction or distribution of multiple copies or phonorecords of the same material, whether made on one occasion or over a period of time, and whether intended for aggregate use by one or more individuals or for separate use by the individual members of a group; or > engages in the systematic reproduction or distribution of single or multiple copies or phonorecords of material described in subsection (d): Provided, That nothing in this clause prevents a library or archives from participating in interlibrary arrangements that do not have, as their purpose or effect, that the library or archives receiving such copies or phonorecords for distribution does so in such aggregate quantities as to substitute for a subscription to or purchase of such work. ... > (1) For purposes of this section, during the last 20 years of any term of copyright of a published work, a library or archives, including a nonprofit educational institution that functions as such, may reproduce, distribute, display, or perform in facsimile or digital form a copy or phonorecord of such work, or portions thereof, for purposes of preservation, scholarship, or research, if such library or archives has first determined, on the basis of a reasonable investigation, that none of the conditions set forth in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (2) apply. > (2) No reproduction, distribution, display, or performance is authorized under this subsection if— > (A) the work is subject to normal commercial exploitation; > (B) a copy or phonorecord of the work can be obtained at a reasonable price; or > (C) the copyright owner or its agent provides notice pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Register of Copyrights that either of the conditions set forth in subparagraphs (A) and (B) applies. --- I believe that the covering of scanned / copied materials by a library are fairly well covered, and that Internet Achieve stepped clearly beyond that definition.