| > All digital lending has been legally dubious since the ReDigi case decided that sending someone a digital file counted as making a new copy. So far, the whole idea of lending exists in a gray area where publishers have simply decided not to sue. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/03/internet-archive.... Anyone else interested in this ReDigi case (I was) can check out the following pages: https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/digital/copyrig... https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/16... https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/business/media/redigi-los... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_LLC_v._ReDi.... More recent news: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181217/17092841253/appea... https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/12/copyright-doctrine-copy... PDF: https://patentlyo.com/media/2018/12/16-2321_opn1.pdf The 2000 mp3.com lawsuit is also interesting, though it didn't involve sharing. https://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/06/technology/mp3com-loses-c... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMG_Recordings,_Inc._v._MP3..... The lawsuit(s?) against Google's book scanning program are also interesting; I believe there was a discussion regarding this on HN somewhat recently, though I may be wrong |