41–50 of 242 posts
Between this fiasco and paywalls around scientific literature, it's becoming impossible for me to see publishers as anything other than cat-stroking Bond villains.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to this post, they did not break the 1:1 ratio of physical to digital books, but expanded the pool of physical books to include those unlent at libraries across the country. That is certainly a debatable point, though. More to the point, the lawsuits are in effect and moving forward now, long after the NEL has ceased operations. They are directed at the CDL now.
It seems strange to loan a digital copy of ... someone else's book. As for the lawsuit going on after they stopped lending, well yeah the legal matter wasn't settled, so it can go on.
If you own a book and I buy it but under a deal that defines you should keep it locked up in a safe. I still own it and have the right to lend it out digitally under CDL, yet it's physically with you. Why is it strange to forgo that madness and just let me provide digital lending services on your behalf? I mean just because it's my lending system doesn't mean I should need to own everything that's being lend out. Amazon doesn't have to own everything they sell.
Considering they were only lending to one person at a time, it does seem like the lawsuit is uncalled for.
Last I heard from this story, the lawsuit was because of unlimited lending: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23391662
(Yes, yes, they may have loaned more copies of a particular work than they had, but those loans have expired now.)
I'm confused by this article. As I remember Archive.org created a "National Emergency Library" basically breaking the 1:1 ratio of physical to digital books in Controlled Digital Lending, and allowing unrestricted use. The lawsuits were brought on June 1st, while the NEL was active. Are these lawsuits based on the CDL (which I personally support) or based on the NEL (which could be considered piracy)?
According to this post, they did not break the 1:1 ratio of physical to digital books, but expanded the pool of physical books to include those unlent at libraries across the country. That is certainly a debatable point, though. More to the point, the lawsuits are in effect and moving forward now, long after the NEL has ceased operations. They are directed at the CDL now.
But it is still a pretty big shift in "how to count" that maybe would have gone over better if discussed first. But let's be realistic, the publishers would have done the same thing. They do it over and over again. A lawsuit seems like an unfortunate but probably only sane way to determine if this new counting method is legal enough to pass muster.
I think counting books in libraries you have formally partnered with that are literally locked behind closed doors is extremely reasonable, but I also think copyrights should last like 20-30 years tops so I doubt that I'm in the mainstream.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems strange to loan a digital copy of ... someone else's book. As for the lawsuit going on after they stopped lending, well yeah the legal matter wasn't settled, so it can go on.
Why should it seem strange? If you own stock I can lend it and sell it outright, and as long as I buy it back and provide it to you at the exit of the deal everything fine. If you own a book and I buy it but under a deal that defines you should keep it locked up in a safe. I still own it and have the right to lend it out digitally under CDL, yet it's physically with you. Why is it strange to forgo that madness and ju…
The article seems somewhat fuzzy on that...
I have a monthly reoccurring donation in the amount of $10. If you haven’t donated please do. https://archive.org/donate/
I object to modern intellectual property and publishing practices as much as anyone, but what did they expect would happen when they dropped their entire legal justification?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems strange to loan a digital copy of ... someone else's book. As for the lawsuit going on after they stopped lending, well yeah the legal matter wasn't settled, so it can go on.
Why should it seem strange? If you own stock I can lend it and sell it outright, and as long as I buy it back and provide it to you at the exit of the deal everything fine. If you own a book and I buy it but under a deal that defines you should keep it locked up in a safe. I still own it and have the right to lend it out digitally under CDL, yet it's physically with you. Why is it strange to forgo that madness and ju…
If that's the main argument of IA, they'll have a tough time in court. It's reasonably well established that when it comes to intellectual property, you can refuse to sell it, and only grant a limited license. With some small carve outs like the First Sale doctrine.
They'll need a judge who is willing to legislate from the bench.