Publishers negotiate licenses for ebooks based on how much more they think ebooks being available for free will cut into sales than physical lending, and scale their fees based on how many copies the library will allow to be "borrowed" at once
-
-
Right. So by this position, the libraries should be able to lend out these ebooks, up to the volume licensed, through their back end provider, whomever they are.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Yes, WITH THE CONSENT OF THE RIGHTSHOLDER, UNDER TERMS THEY NEGOTIATED The "controlled digital lending" theory (CDL) of the Internet Archive asserts they don't have to do this, that whoever owns a physical copy can do whatever they want with it "within reason"
1 reply 1 retweet 12 likes -
And I am with you here.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Okay, so you agree with the Authors Guild that the Internet Archive should take down all their CDL content immediately (the "extreme" position) and only put up ebooks under a "traditional" license
1 reply 1 retweet 10 likes -
I do agree there. My main concern has been the blanket arguments made that IA has no rights whatsoever when they clearly do, just not to the limited given by CDL.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
The "blanket argument" is you shouldn't have any rights associated with digital content that weren't explicitly negotiated with the rightsholder The reason people consider this "extreme" is the whole "physical is no different from digital" argument
2 replies 1 retweet 8 likes -
My concern is that if libraries cannot use a middleware vendor, like IA, Amazon, or OverDrive, it would make the cost of lending too high for any but the largest library systems to manage.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
It's not about the existence of a middleman it's about the existence of an additional license created from thin air nobody negotiated
1 reply 1 retweet 7 likes -
But that is the crux of my concern over the authors guild's arguments. Remember, their position is not that IA is over lending, but that it is lending at all, despite being a middleware partner for several libraries.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
No, their position is over the UNILATERAL LICENSE, of lending WITHOUT FURTHER COMPENSATION FOR THE AUTHOR
-
-
Quoting the Authors Guild: IA has no rights whatsoever to these books
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Yes, because they didn't pay for them Their position is that buying a physical copy gives you no digital distribution rights whatsoever, which is completely fair (copyright case law has ALWAYS regarded transferring from one medium to another as legally significant)
1 reply 1 retweet 15 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.