|
|
|
|
|
|
by gamblor956
2156 days ago
|
|
|
This case isn't about the IA's Controlled Digital Lending program, which is a thing most US libraries already do, and in fact did long before the IA launched their own CDL library program. This case is about the IA's National "Emergency Library" which was uncontrolled lending, which is not a thing covered by the first sale doctrine or any exemptions provided for by copyright law. |
|
|
No, what most libraries do is buy separate (and more expensive, and more restricted) licenses for lendable digital copies of certain works–not everything in their archives is available digitally. The IA's pre-COVID CDL program represented a significant step forward in terms of treating 1:1 digital lending of scans of physical works as equivalent to physical lending.
> … National "Emergency Library" which was uncontrolled lending …
The controversy is primarily over the mostly controlled National Emergency Library, which wasn't quite as controlled as what they were doing before but still had DRM and limits on the duration of the lending. Some few works may have had more copies checked out at a time than the IA had physical copies in their inventory, yes. Consider this an example of time-shifting. The borrower doesn't get to keep the copy, they just get it a bit earlier without waiting in line. On the whole I'm certain the average number of copies per work would have been much less than one, even without considering physical copies languishing in other libraries that were inaccessible due to COVID.
This case, however, is objecting to both the NEL and the previous CDL program. The IA is obviously going to focus on the claims regarding CDL, where they have a stronger defense, while the publishers' propaganda is all about the NEL since that wins them more sympathy.