3 ms·

> If it did care about copies - i.e. the total number of copies in circulation - … the Internet Archive's Controlled Digital Lending (CDL) program would have bo

• kmeisthax 2mo ago
  The National Emergency Library stunt definitely provoked action from the publishers in that lawsuit, but they were very clear that they did not accept the premise of Controlled Digital Lending. Furthermore, the judge ruled against the CDL scheme in abstract, not just the Internet Archive's flawed[0] implementation of it, because there was already binding precedent against digital first sale in the ReDigi lawsuit. ReDigi was a company that had built a marketplace for "used MP3s". They wrote software that transferred files in a very specific way - deleting data as it was sent - so that there was never more than one copy in circulation at a time. The courts ruled this scheme was illegal - that deleting a copy on computer A does not permit you to create one on computer B - because copyright cares about the act of copying, not the number of copies in circulation. Hence why I don't believe Anthropic is actually legally obliged to destroy books. The general principle of the law doesn't support the specific distinction being argued here. [0] Part of the discovery showed that the Internet Archive had actual knowledge of partner libraries that were not taking books out of circulation and failed to immediately suspend them from the program.