3 ms·

A physical library does not involve making a copy, but lending out an existing physical copy. One book, one reader. "Controlled Digital Lending" literally invol

A physical library does not involve making a copy, but lending out an existing physical copy. One book, one reader. "Controlled Digital Lending" literally involves making and transmitting a copy to another physical medium electronically. Brewster has endangered the good work done by people at the archive for a case he was never going to win and which was of dubious value. If he wants to be the next Anna's Archive then he should drop all pretense and go do that... but leave the archive to do what the archive is meant to do.

Kerrick 2y ago
Does this case's effect on CDL mean that a library could still buy a huge stack of ultra-cheap eBook readers, load each one up with their one copy of a given book, and then lend out the physical readers?
- tptacek 2y ago
  Presumably not, because the same copies would be created. This wasn't a case that hinged on DRM or content protection. IA was making copies, lots of copies, and that's an action governed by copyright law; it's right there in the name. All that aside: if you have 1:1 physical books anyways, what is the reader accomplishing here? Just loan out the book.
- kmeisthax 2y ago
  No, but I suspect the licensing on the ebooks already forbids transferring the physical reader the book is on to another person.
cmiles74 2y ago
Still, under the CDL it is only one book, one person. This is significantly different from a site like Anna's Archive.
- EarlKing 2y ago
  No, it isn't. They're issuing a copy to the reader for the duration of their checkout. Your argument might hold some weight if they scanned a book, destroyed the book, and then deleted the book from their own servers every time it was lent out... but that's not how CDL works. What they're doing is unambiguously copying.
  - cmiles74 2y ago
    They aren't lending the physical book and the digital book simultaneously; there's only ever one "book" lent. To my mind this is materially different from sites like Anna's Archive.
    - EarlKing 2y ago
      The law is the law, and the court doesn't care about your opinion. They broke the law. Seriously, I don't understand the reluctance of some to admit this. It's almost like the rule of law just doesn't exist for you as long as it's a cause you care about. Even more puzzling is the idea that you should just wantonly break the law in a way that drags down good institutions with you as if your own personal battle with bad law is more important than anything else. It really isn't, and I wish some of you would accept that fact rather than trying to one-up each other on the internet. It's not helping anybody.
      - kilolima 2y ago
        Civil disobedience is breaking the law. Are you suggesting that Rosa Parks should have sat in the back of the bus?
LunaSea 2y ago
That is incorrect. Libraries regularly scan and OCR books to make them digitally accessible and searchable. I hope the likes of the Library of Congress are ready to shutdown their online services.
- EarlKing 2y ago
  Digitally accessible and searchable on site, not on line... unless you're saying the Library of Congress makes *in copyright* works available on line to all comers?
  - codedokode 2y ago
    What is the difference between lending a book in the library building and over the Internet from the library website? Lending over Internet is better because it saves the user from transportation cost, allows to read books at night etc.
    - EarlKing 2y ago
      THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT A COPY IS MADE. They broke the law. This isn't that hard to understand. If you don't like the law then either work to change it, create substitute works, or break the law in a way that doesn't involve dragging down the archive with you.
      - dannyobrien 2y ago
        Again, for clarification: this is the archive which contains copies of all those other web pages? Should they have waited to start this archive, which is important enough for you to worry about its future existence, until the law on the right to make copies of websites was settled law? Bearing in mind that there are ongoing lawsuits and discussion on this topic right now, over fifty years since the emergence of the digital networks that rely on making copies to disseminate information. Do you think that there was an open-and-shut case for an online archive in 1996?
      - ruszki 2y ago
jhbadger 2y ago
It does when the physical library is loaning an ebook -- it works on exactly the same principal as CDL -- library owns ebook, library loans out to one user the ebook -- that's why there is often a wait list when trying to check out ebooks from a real physical library. In fact, even the same DRM system is used to prevent the user from keeping the ebook after the loan is up -- Adobe's Digital Editions.
- jonny_eh 2y ago
  Libraries have different contracts with book publishers for eBooks. IA didn't have any contracts with any publisher. See: https://www.npr.org/2022/11/09/1135639385/libraries-publishers-ebooks-e-books-macmillan-protest-amazon-bezos https://www.npr.org/2022/11/09/1135639385/libraries-publishe...
  - codedokode 2y ago
    The libraries lent physical books without any contracts. What publishers want is to make so that the rules and rights regrading physical books do not apply to digital books; what IA wants is to allow libraries treat and lend digital books the same way as physical, without permission from the publisher. The contracts with libraries you mention require a library to buy a license for every ebook, and renew the license periodically; the publisher may set arbitrary price and terms. So what the publisher wants is to strip users of digital books part of their rights.
    - pie_flavor 2y ago
      You never had rights to freely copy digital books. You're not being 'stripped' of them when a judge says 'the law applies as written'. If you want these brand new rights, call your Congressman.
codedokode 2y ago
1) Making a copy is not always illegal; for example, scanning books for Google Books by Google is considered legal. 2) Digital books are DRM-protected so you cannot lend them or re-sell like you can with physical books. So making a digital copy of a physical book can be considered merely a method to workaround these restrictions. 3) Publishers want to use new technology (electronic books) to remove rights that consumers had with physical books, to be specific: a right to re-sell the book, a right to lend the book, a right to make archival copies etc.
- pcthrowaway 2y ago
  > 1) Making a copy is not always illegal; for example, scanning books for Google Books by Google is considered legal. I believe I remember this was tried at one point too. The significant difference here is that Google has seemingly unlimited money to throw towards lobbying and court cases
  - wbl 2y ago
    Google books shows length limited excerpts. That's a huge difference.
  - shagie 2y ago
    Authors Guild v. Google - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,.... and https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/summaries/authorsguild-google-2dcir2015.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/summaries/authorsguild-go... > The Second Circuit agreed with the district court’s ruling that Google’s digitization and subsequent use of the copyrighted works was fair use. In concluding that Google’s use was transformative, the circuit court found that “Google’s making of a digital copy to provide a search function . . . augments public knowledge by making available information about [p]laintiffs’ books without providing the public with a substantial substitute for matter protected by the [p]laintiffs’ copyright interests in the original works or derivatives of them.” > ... > Regarding the Google Books project’s potential to impact the market for or value of the copyrighted works, the circuit court held that—despite the search function’s potential to cause “some loss of sales”—the brevity of the snippet search results and the “cumbersome, disjointed, and incomplete nature of the aggregation of snippets made available through snippet view” make it unlikely that Google’s use could “provide a significant substitute for the purchase of the author’s book.”
kilolima 2y ago
Maybe he was trying to torpedo CDL from ever being viable again? It seems a pretty despicable practice that attempts to shoehorn artificial scarcity to digital media, and I hate the fact the our libraries waste their monies propping up archaic monopolies, so maybe this is a win after all.

Kerrick 2y ago

Does this case's effect on CDL mean that a library could still buy a huge stack of ultra-cheap eBook readers, load each one up with their one copy of a given book, and then lend out the physical readers?

tptacek 2y ago
Presumably not, because the same copies would be created. This wasn't a case that hinged on DRM or content protection. IA was making copies, lots of copies, and that's an action governed by copyright law; it's right there in the name. All that aside: if you have 1:1 physical books anyways, what is the reader accomplishing here? Just loan out the book.
kmeisthax 2y ago
No, but I suspect the licensing on the ebooks already forbids transferring the physical reader the book is on to another person.

cmiles74 2y ago

Still, under the CDL it is only one book, one person. This is significantly different from a site like Anna's Archive.

EarlKing 2y ago
No, it isn't. They're issuing a copy to the reader for the duration of their checkout. Your argument might hold some weight if they scanned a book, destroyed the book, and then deleted the book from their own servers every time it was lent out... but that's not how CDL works. What they're doing is unambiguously copying.
- cmiles74 2y ago
  They aren't lending the physical book and the digital book simultaneously; there's only ever one "book" lent. To my mind this is materially different from sites like Anna's Archive.
  - EarlKing 2y ago
    The law is the law, and the court doesn't care about your opinion. They broke the law. Seriously, I don't understand the reluctance of some to admit this. It's almost like the rule of law just doesn't exist for you as long as it's a cause you care about. Even more puzzling is the idea that you should just wantonly break the law in a way that drags down good institutions with you as if your own personal battle with bad law is more important than anything else. It really isn't, and I wish some of you would accept that fact rather than trying to one-up each other on the internet. It's not helping anybody.
    - kilolima 2y ago
      Civil disobedience is breaking the law. Are you suggesting that Rosa Parks should have sat in the back of the bus?

LunaSea 2y ago

That is incorrect. Libraries regularly scan and OCR books to make them digitally accessible and searchable. I hope the likes of the Library of Congress are ready to shutdown their online services.

EarlKing 2y ago
Digitally accessible and searchable on site, not on line... unless you're saying the Library of Congress makes *in copyright* works available on line to all comers?
- codedokode 2y ago
  What is the difference between lending a book in the library building and over the Internet from the library website? Lending over Internet is better because it saves the user from transportation cost, allows to read books at night etc.
  - EarlKing 2y ago
    THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT A COPY IS MADE. They broke the law. This isn't that hard to understand. If you don't like the law then either work to change it, create substitute works, or break the law in a way that doesn't involve dragging down the archive with you.
    - dannyobrien 2y ago
      Again, for clarification: this is the archive which contains copies of all those other web pages? Should they have waited to start this archive, which is important enough for you to worry about its future existence, until the law on the right to make copies of websites was settled law? Bearing in mind that there are ongoing lawsuits and discussion on this topic right now, over fifty years since the emergence of the digital networks that rely on making copies to disseminate information. Do you think that there was an open-and-shut case for an online archive in 1996?
    - ruszki 2y ago

jhbadger 2y ago

It does when the physical library is loaning an ebook -- it works on exactly the same principal as CDL -- library owns ebook, library loans out to one user the ebook -- that's why there is often a wait list when trying to check out ebooks from a real physical library. In fact, even the same DRM system is used to prevent the user from keeping the ebook after the loan is up -- Adobe's Digital Editions.

jonny_eh 2y ago
Libraries have different contracts with book publishers for eBooks. IA didn't have any contracts with any publisher. See: https://www.npr.org/2022/11/09/1135639385/libraries-publishers-ebooks-e-books-macmillan-protest-amazon-bezos https://www.npr.org/2022/11/09/1135639385/libraries-publishe...
- codedokode 2y ago
  The libraries lent physical books without any contracts. What publishers want is to make so that the rules and rights regrading physical books do not apply to digital books; what IA wants is to allow libraries treat and lend digital books the same way as physical, without permission from the publisher. The contracts with libraries you mention require a library to buy a license for every ebook, and renew the license periodically; the publisher may set arbitrary price and terms. So what the publisher wants is to strip users of digital books part of their rights.
  - pie_flavor 2y ago
    You never had rights to freely copy digital books. You're not being 'stripped' of them when a judge says 'the law applies as written'. If you want these brand new rights, call your Congressman.

codedokode 2y ago

1) Making a copy is not always illegal; for example, scanning books for Google Books by Google is considered legal. 2) Digital books are DRM-protected so you cannot lend them or re-sell like you can with physical books. So making a digital copy of a physical book can be considered merely a method to workaround these restrictions. 3) Publishers want to use new technology (electronic books) to remove rights that consumers had with physical books, to be specific: a right to re-sell the book, a right to lend the book, a right to make archival copies etc.

pcthrowaway 2y ago
> 1) Making a copy is not always illegal; for example, scanning books for Google Books by Google is considered legal. I believe I remember this was tried at one point too. The significant difference here is that Google has seemingly unlimited money to throw towards lobbying and court cases
- wbl 2y ago
  Google books shows length limited excerpts. That's a huge difference.
- shagie 2y ago
  Authors Guild v. Google - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,.... and https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/summaries/authorsguild-google-2dcir2015.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/summaries/authorsguild-go... > The Second Circuit agreed with the district court’s ruling that Google’s digitization and subsequent use of the copyrighted works was fair use. In concluding that Google’s use was transformative, the circuit court found that “Google’s making of a digital copy to provide a search function . . . augments public knowledge by making available information about [p]laintiffs’ books without providing the public with a substantial substitute for matter protected by the [p]laintiffs’ copyright interests in the original works or derivatives of them.” > ... > Regarding the Google Books project’s potential to impact the market for or value of the copyrighted works, the circuit court held that—despite the search function’s potential to cause “some loss of sales”—the brevity of the snippet search results and the “cumbersome, disjointed, and incomplete nature of the aggregation of snippets made available through snippet view” make it unlikely that Google’s use could “provide a significant substitute for the purchase of the author’s book.”

kilolima 2y ago

Maybe he was trying to torpedo CDL from ever being viable again? It seems a pretty despicable practice that attempts to shoehorn artificial scarcity to digital media, and I hate the fact the our libraries waste their monies propping up archaic monopolies, so maybe this is a win after all.