6 ms·

>And now there will be a legal precedent to shut down all CDLs of these "lots of libraries" No, it's a different situation. In contrast, the government public

by jasode 2y ago

>And now there will be a legal precedent to shut down all CDLs of these "lots of libraries" No, it's a different situation. In contrast, the government public libraries legitimately purchased ebook licenses (aka "renting") from the publishers and then "loaned" out a limited # of simultaneous copies in a legal manner. The book publishers approved this arrangement. The Internet Archive didn't do that. Instead, they "loaned" out digital scans of books they did not buy ebook licenses for and took it upon themselves to name it "Controlled Digital Lending". This method circumvents the book publishers which is the opposite of what government public libraries did. EDIT reply to: >If they have the physical book how is this any different, When I wrote, "different situation" , it's about the "legal difference" and not "philosophical difference". - situation with govt public libraries: The book publishers did not sue the public libraries that legitimately purchase ebook licenses from them. The publishers receive payments from that arrangement so there's no lawsuit for "copyright violation". - situation with Internet Archive: The book publishers sued IA for copyright violation by lending books it never purchased ebook licenses for. The circuit appeals court sided with the book publishers unanimously by a vote of 3-to-0. Those 2 situations above are different legally such that whatever precedent that's set by IA losing the case doesn't affect govt libraries that have been purchasing legitimate ebook licenses. I was trying to clarify gp's incorrect statement which could spread misinformation: "And now there will be a legal precedent to shut down all CDLs of these "lots of libraries"

sam0x17 2y ago
If they have the physical book how is this any different, it had to be purchased at some point or donated for them to acquire it. If anything I would argue they are doing more work for the publishers by creating an ebook from scans. I also think a sane interpretation of fair use would be that the scan is a new / derivative work that is transformative, but we'll never get there with the current legal climate. Philosophically I've always been there. And yes, I would outright abolish copyrights if I could, so please don't try to what-if me, I won't care about the implications in the way you would want me to. If anything, imo to be able to hold on to a copyright you should have a burden of proof that society benefits as a whole long-term from your work remaining copyrighted, and virtually nothing meets that burden of proof.
- vel0city 2y ago
  > I also think a sane interpretation of fair use would be that the scan is a new / derivative work that is transformative The creative part being protected by copyright are the words, not the physical pages. You're not transforming the words; you're transforming the paper to bitmaps. All the words and concepts within them are the same. It's not transformative in the same way ripping a CD to an MP3 isn't transformative. If I change the font for an ebook, have I meaningfully transformed it?
  - sam0x17 2y ago
    > if I change the font for an ebook, have I meaningfully transformed it? Change one pixel and imo yes
    - vel0city 2y ago
      How is a single pixel of difference in potentially hundreds of pages of text a meaningful change? It isn't changing the characters or story itself in the slightest. Please, defend that point as an actual argument that it's then somehow fair use to change one pixel of an ebook and have it be a meaningfully different work.
- autoexec 2y ago
  >If they have the physical book how is this any different, it had to be purchased at some point or donated for them to acquire it. If anything I would argue they are doing more work for the publishers by creating an ebook from scans The publishers and the third party platforms libraries force people to use for digital lending can force ebook readers to create accounts and hand over their personal data and reading history and those platforms use that to push ads or sell that data to publishers and other third parties. What the internet archive was doing didn't allow publishers to collect/sell that personal data, didn't give them the ability to limit/censor/remove titles at any time, and didn't allow them to charge excessive fees for the "privilege" of loaning the book electronically. From the stance of the publisher they risked losing a lot of money and power. From the stance of everyone else what the internet archive was doing was an improvement.
holmesworcester 2y ago
And those paying attention will see that the publisher-approved version of digital lending gives publishers a legal/technical off switch on the existence of libraries, to the extent libraries go digital. Is anyone here okay with this? Kahle/IA certainly aren't!
- ethbr1 2y ago
  Exactly. The broader issue here is about control -- specifically, who has the right to alter the financial arrangement, at what time. I think everyone can agree we've seen from academic publishing what a shitshow {public need} + {extractive private IP ownership} can be. Requesting libraries to enter into agreements with publishers in order to loan copies of their books isn't in the public interest. Because invariably these publishers will realize they can bump rates year over year. And then private equity will realize they can buy these rights holders for a secure income stream. And then the year over year price growth will accelerate. And contrast this with physical first sale doctrine. (1) The library bought or was donated a copy of the book. (2) As long as they could store it, no publisher could tell them a damn thing about how they could and couldn't loan it.
  - gibolt 2y ago
    This comment plus the parent changed my opinion on the case. They still may have gone too far be loaning out copies, but the fight to return to physical book loaning practices is worth it. Ownership and long-term availability matter.
    - trinsic2 2y ago
      Yea, I don't like the whole loaning out idea either. Loaning implies ownership. Corporate propaganda has done a good job of convincing people otherwise. I came across an article that was really good at explaining the issue of ownership around digital goods that people who want to have a balanced view of the situation should read. https://linustechtips.com/topic/953835-you-own-the-software-that-you-purchase-and-any-claims-otherwise-are-urban-myth-or-corporate-propaganda/ https://linustechtips.com/topic/953835-you-own-the-software-...
account42 2y ago
And you don't think that publishers having to be involved with digital lending is a problem? Libraries don't have to seek permission to lend paper books and they are not responsible for ensuring that those books aren't copied. Same should apply to the digital world.

by jasode 2y ago

sam0x17 2y ago

If they have the physical book how is this any different, it had to be purchased at some point or donated for them to acquire it. If anything I would argue they are doing more work for the publishers by creating an ebook from scans. I also think a sane interpretation of fair use would be that the scan is a new / derivative work that is transformative, but we'll never get there with the current legal climate. Philosophically I've always been there. And yes, I would outright abolish copyrights if I could, so please don't try to what-if me, I won't care about the implications in the way you would want me to. If anything, imo to be able to hold on to a copyright you should have a burden of proof that society benefits as a whole long-term from your work remaining copyrighted, and virtually nothing meets that burden of proof.

vel0city 2y ago
> I also think a sane interpretation of fair use would be that the scan is a new / derivative work that is transformative The creative part being protected by copyright are the words, not the physical pages. You're not transforming the words; you're transforming the paper to bitmaps. All the words and concepts within them are the same. It's not transformative in the same way ripping a CD to an MP3 isn't transformative. If I change the font for an ebook, have I meaningfully transformed it?
- sam0x17 2y ago
  > if I change the font for an ebook, have I meaningfully transformed it? Change one pixel and imo yes
  - vel0city 2y ago
    How is a single pixel of difference in potentially hundreds of pages of text a meaningful change? It isn't changing the characters or story itself in the slightest. Please, defend that point as an actual argument that it's then somehow fair use to change one pixel of an ebook and have it be a meaningfully different work.
autoexec 2y ago
>If they have the physical book how is this any different, it had to be purchased at some point or donated for them to acquire it. If anything I would argue they are doing more work for the publishers by creating an ebook from scans The publishers and the third party platforms libraries force people to use for digital lending can force ebook readers to create accounts and hand over their personal data and reading history and those platforms use that to push ads or sell that data to publishers and other third parties. What the internet archive was doing didn't allow publishers to collect/sell that personal data, didn't give them the ability to limit/censor/remove titles at any time, and didn't allow them to charge excessive fees for the "privilege" of loaning the book electronically. From the stance of the publisher they risked losing a lot of money and power. From the stance of everyone else what the internet archive was doing was an improvement.

holmesworcester 2y ago

And those paying attention will see that the publisher-approved version of digital lending gives publishers a legal/technical off switch on the existence of libraries, to the extent libraries go digital. Is anyone here okay with this? Kahle/IA certainly aren't!

ethbr1 2y ago
Exactly. The broader issue here is about control -- specifically, who has the right to alter the financial arrangement, at what time. I think everyone can agree we've seen from academic publishing what a shitshow {public need} + {extractive private IP ownership} can be. Requesting libraries to enter into agreements with publishers in order to loan copies of their books isn't in the public interest. Because invariably these publishers will realize they can bump rates year over year. And then private equity will realize they can buy these rights holders for a secure income stream. And then the year over year price growth will accelerate. And contrast this with physical first sale doctrine. (1) The library bought or was donated a copy of the book. (2) As long as they could store it, no publisher could tell them a damn thing about how they could and couldn't loan it.
- gibolt 2y ago
  This comment plus the parent changed my opinion on the case. They still may have gone too far be loaning out copies, but the fight to return to physical book loaning practices is worth it. Ownership and long-term availability matter.
  - trinsic2 2y ago
    Yea, I don't like the whole loaning out idea either. Loaning implies ownership. Corporate propaganda has done a good job of convincing people otherwise. I came across an article that was really good at explaining the issue of ownership around digital goods that people who want to have a balanced view of the situation should read. https://linustechtips.com/topic/953835-you-own-the-software-that-you-purchase-and-any-claims-otherwise-are-urban-myth-or-corporate-propaganda/ https://linustechtips.com/topic/953835-you-own-the-software-...

account42 2y ago

And you don't think that publishers having to be involved with digital lending is a problem? Libraries don't have to seek permission to lend paper books and they are not responsible for ensuring that those books aren't copied. Same should apply to the digital world.