5 ms·

What's wrong with lenging digital copies over the Internet? It is actually better because it allows people from remote areas to access the books, it allows lend

What's wrong with lenging digital copies over the Internet? It is actually better because it allows people from remote areas to access the books, it allows lending books at night, so it makes using the library more convenient, saves user's time and library's money. Also, copying is ok in some cases; for example, the court found that Google scanning books for Google Books did it legally; 17 US Code 108 and 109 provide some exemptions from copyright.

tptacek 2y ago
It's good to want things. The contours of the Google case are discussed in this decision: Google Books scanning is "fair use" because books aren't made available in their entirety, and the IA's library feature is (unless SCOTUS disagrees, which seems extraordinarily unlikely) emphatically not.
- codedokode 2y ago
  Google Books case establishes that scanning a copyrighted work is not always illegal; you cannot use that solely to prove the infringement. Regarding "books made available for free": libraries allow to read books for free.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    It was never anybody's claim that scanning a copyrighted work is always illegal. This is an easy, straightforward decision to read; I think you'd be better off just reading it.
    - codedokode 2y ago
      The decision is that lending of digital books causes "market harm for the publishers". It outweighs anything else. So the court only cares about profits of publishers and not right of the buyers, including "first-sale doctrine" and right to lend a legally obtained book. The court sees the case as merely making illegal copies and doesn't want to make analogies with libraries lending out books. It is obvious. You can apply most of those arguments to a library lending out (distributing) physical books without authorization and causing same harm to the publisher.
      - tptacek 2y ago
        No, that is not at all what the decision says. There's a 4-factor test for "fair use". Market harm is just one of them. The court found IA failed all 4 tests. That's the ballgame: if your copying is (1) unauthorized and (2) not fair use, it's infringing. There's no "library exception".
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        > There's no "library exception". The copying only exists on a technical level because digital stuff is weird. Only one copy is usable at a time. So either IA is guilty of copying because of a technicality, or normal libraries are only allowed because of a technicality/exception. (Because normal libraries fail the transformation test, they fail the amount copied test, they fail the expressive nature test, and they fail the market impact test.) I want to believe the former is correct. Either way I believe there should be a way for IA to access that same "this isn't considered copying" territory somehow.
        tptacek 2y ago
        Libraries are not allowed to do what IA did!
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        I'm talking about what libraries are allowed to do, the non-digital version of lending. It fails every fair use test, but they're allowed to do it. The only difference is whether technically copying happens, because controlled digital lending has the same results as a system that involves no copying. It doesn't have the common definition of copying where two people can access two copies at the same time. If IA came first, and libraries came second, would we refer to libraries as having a technicality/exception that lets them be legal? Though I suspect that if libraries were invented right now they'd be declared illegal.
        tptacek 2y ago

tptacek 2y ago

It's good to want things. The contours of the Google case are discussed in this decision: Google Books scanning is "fair use" because books aren't made available in their entirety, and the IA's library feature is (unless SCOTUS disagrees, which seems extraordinarily unlikely) emphatically not.

codedokode 2y ago
Google Books case establishes that scanning a copyrighted work is not always illegal; you cannot use that solely to prove the infringement. Regarding "books made available for free": libraries allow to read books for free.
- tptacek 2y ago
  It was never anybody's claim that scanning a copyrighted work is always illegal. This is an easy, straightforward decision to read; I think you'd be better off just reading it.
  - codedokode 2y ago
    The decision is that lending of digital books causes "market harm for the publishers". It outweighs anything else. So the court only cares about profits of publishers and not right of the buyers, including "first-sale doctrine" and right to lend a legally obtained book. The court sees the case as merely making illegal copies and doesn't want to make analogies with libraries lending out books. It is obvious. You can apply most of those arguments to a library lending out (distributing) physical books without authorization and causing same harm to the publisher.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      No, that is not at all what the decision says. There's a 4-factor test for "fair use". Market harm is just one of them. The court found IA failed all 4 tests. That's the ballgame: if your copying is (1) unauthorized and (2) not fair use, it's infringing. There's no "library exception".
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        > There's no "library exception". The copying only exists on a technical level because digital stuff is weird. Only one copy is usable at a time. So either IA is guilty of copying because of a technicality, or normal libraries are only allowed because of a technicality/exception. (Because normal libraries fail the transformation test, they fail the amount copied test, they fail the expressive nature test, and they fail the market impact test.) I want to believe the former is correct. Either way I believe there should be a way for IA to access that same "this isn't considered copying" territory somehow.
        tptacek 2y ago
        Libraries are not allowed to do what IA did!
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        I'm talking about what libraries are allowed to do, the non-digital version of lending. It fails every fair use test, but they're allowed to do it. The only difference is whether technically copying happens, because controlled digital lending has the same results as a system that involves no copying. It doesn't have the common definition of copying where two people can access two copies at the same time. If IA came first, and libraries came second, would we refer to libraries as having a technicality/exception that lets them be legal? Though I suspect that if libraries were invented right now they'd be declared illegal.
        tptacek 2y ago