[benatkin]

> You're saying something similar to "you wouldn't download a car".

It's applying without considering it.

The digital book isn't being kept at the old location because there is no digital book in the physical book.

It's the only way to transfer a single copy of a book without destroying the physical copy.

Judges should consider stuff like this and it's a disappointing ruling.

But go on...

[endisneigh]

Exactly. And there lies the issue. Internet archive has the book and lends the book simultaneously. Hence why they lost.

[dahart]

No, that’s not why they lost. The reason is because they effectively lend it to many people simultaneously, and implement no controls on getting it “returned” (deleted) by the people they lent it to, while even being aware that some of them don’t “return” it.

The technicality that they keep a copy of the book while it’s being lent isn’t really at issue here at all. It’s not because there are two copies, it’s because there are three or more copies, given to two or more parties at the same time. It has become “distribution” in the eyes of copyright law, beyond the lending analogy.

[endisneigh]

Even if they did what you described they would still lose. There would be no way to implement a control to prevent an additional simultaneous copy. It's not a technical issue, it's simple impossible inherently.

I don't know why companies keep trying this. MP3.com, Aereo, etc. The precedent is clear.

[xuto3]

Again, speaking about the wider CDL initiative (one digital copy lent for each physical copy) and not their National Emergency Library, the Internet Archive do implement a DRM on that digital copy, so for the reader to make additional copies of it is not trivial. Regardless, from where do you get a requirement to prevent (with 100% certainty) the reader from making additional copies? When a person borrows a physical book from a library, they could photocopy the entire thing, then return the book they borrowed to the library and still have an additional copy that they made. Does that make library lending illegal? How is that something that can be blamed on the library in the first place?

[dahart]

The question isn’t whether it’s technically possible, the question is whether they even tried, and one of the reasons they lost is not just because they didn’t try at all, they instead looked the other way when they knew the borrowers didn’t “return” the book.

[endisneigh]

my point is that even if they did try, the outcome would've been the same and CDL was doomed from the beginning. their inane emergency CDL plan simply accelerated this outcome

[dahart]

Maybe, but that’s speculation, and others have won fair use claims. The decision in this case explicitly cited the defendant’s lack of effort to control their loaned copies while being aware of infringement.

[criddell]

Do you think it would have made a difference if they bought three copies of the book and then shredded two of them? That way they would have the original they scanned, their digital version they copy to lend, and the loaned digital copy.

[endisneigh]

No, because they still wouldn’t be lending out what was bought.

[hackernewds]

This makes logical sense. Pay for one, lend one.

[jrmg]

The ruling discusses this (at length!) and concludes that even a buy-one-physical-lend-one-digital scheme would not be acceptable under current law.