Appeals court decision potentially reversing publishers' suit may come this fall. //

The Internet Archive (IA) went before a three-judge panel Friday to defend its open library's controlled digital lending (CDL) practices after book publishers last year won a lawsuit claiming that the archive's lending violated copyright law. //

"It's not unlawful for a library to lend a book it owns to one patron at a time," Gratz said IA told the court. "And the advent of digital technology doesn't change that result. That's lawful. And that's what librarians do." //

IA has argued that because copyright law is intended to provide equal access to knowledge, copyright law is better served by allowing IA's lending than by preventing it. They're hoping the judges will decide that CDL is fair use, reversing the lower court's decision and restoring access to books recently removed from the open library. //

dogbertat Smack-Fu Master, in training
9y
66
Subscriptor++

chilldude22 said:
I’ve never thought or heard of this copyright interpretation before. How accurate is this description, both in law and intent? I always just assumed we’re in America and any rules benefit the powerful by default.

I think it's accurate, although I think the pendulum has swung to far toward commercial interests in the last 50 years so it isn't always apparent. Copyright is intended to serve the commonweal, not specifically the creator, by establishing the right for a limited time monopoly on works in order to incentivize creation. "The utilitarian aim of the Intellectual Property Clause is to maximize scientific and artistic progress. It does so by attempting to balance the incentives it provides for innovation, against the chilling effects that limiting access to writings and discoveries may have on novel thought." (Cornell Legal Information Institute)//

Tempus --)------- Ars Tribunus Militum
20y
2,675
Subscriptor++

BrianB_NY said:
Internet Archive wants you to believe that they can buy one copy and then "lend" it to everyone around the world, and that this is just like a library. But that isn't a fair analogy. In the tangible book arena, libraries buy many copies of books, creating sales of the books for the publisher. So people get the benefit of borrowing and both the author and publisher get paid for their work, so they can create new books.

You seem to be under the impression that other libraries don’t do lending of digital works and e-books, and that the internet archive policies allow lending a given work to more people at a time than they have purchased copies. Neither of those things are true. //

dogbertat Smack-Fu Master, in training
9y
66
Subscriptor++

BrianB_NY said:
Internet Archive wants you to believe that they can buy one copy and then "lend" it to everyone around the world, and that this is just like a library. But that isn't a fair analogy. In the tangible book arena, libraries buy many copies of books, creating sales of the books for the publisher. So people get the benefit of borrowing and both the author and publisher get paid for their work, so they can create new books.

But that's not how the Internet Archive works. They practice what is called Controlled Digital Lending (CDL). They take a physical copy, scan that particular copy, then make it available for checkout. While it is checked out, no one else can borrow it, just like a physical library. So while the title is available to everyone to try to check out, only that one copy can be (i.e., one physical book; one digital lending available). If you see multiple titles, it's because multiple physical copies of that book are held by the Internet Archives.

Libraries don't have to buy specially licensed physical books. They can (and sometime do) buy it off Amazon and put it on the shelf (although they usually use other suppliers). For some reason, the publishers think that libraries need specially licensed digital books. These cost much more than the digital copy you would get from Amazon or elsewhere. And they can't even buy the digital book in perpetuity like you can, but only for a limited number checkouts. So the Internet Archive is testing this saying, 'Hey, I can scan the book I own and lend it so long as I don't lend more than the copies I own.". //

The only reason the publishers are fighting this is that library-licensed-ebooks are WAY MORE PROFITABLE than the normal ebook (or book!), for absolutely no reason, other than that the whole "license, not ownership" thing that's happened over the last couple decades allows the publishers to do it.

That part is spot on. Since the law treats eBooks as computer programs, suddenly all of the things that publishers could not do with physical copies (such as sell books with "licenses" forbidding resale) can now be done. So publishers can limit the number of copies that can be purchased, and have the licenses expire after a certain number of circulations and/or certain time periods, and, oh, by the way, hold back sales of "library edition" eBooks until months after publication of their physical and other eBook copies. That is why CDL is such a threat to the publishing model.