you are the one without a clue. they had a limited number of copies equal the number of physical copies a library had. the ebooks were lent out until that number was reached then people had to wait. the lent copies were read, then returned, which allowed another person access.
-
-
the lent copies themselves were temporary, with a self destruct built into them. they could no longer be read after the lending period. so yes, it was a fucking LIBRARY.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Raptornx01 @perdricof
The issue with Controlled Digital Lending is that even if they promise they write code that strictly limits the number of borrowed copies to equal physical copies (and thus mimic a physical library) they have the power to remove that limit with a keystroke
3 replies 4 retweets 21 likes -
The reason publishers haven't sued over CDL for nine years is that there was this extremely tense standoff as long as IA swore up and down they would never use this power Then they did, with the pandemic as justification Now there's an entirely predictable lawsuit
1 reply 6 retweets 32 likes -
It's not about the amount of money they lose during this time period It's about IA openly changing their stance from "We will NEVER EVER do anything to compromise the 'legal pillars' of controlled digital lending" to "We might do so whenever we think there's a good reason"
3 replies 4 retweets 30 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @perdricof
except they didn't really change much except giving access to a wider audience during a time of global crisis as a means of providing aid. the copies are still being "lent". not given. no different then if a library suddenly got a fresh shipment of new stock.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Raptornx01 @perdricof
Uh, yes, it's completely different A library that gets a new shipment of physical books had to pay for that new shipment, with each new copy costing as much as the copies they already had IA just waved a magic wand to give themselves infinite copies, for free
3 replies 3 retweets 36 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @perdricof
No, they don't. 1) Libraries receive donations of new books all the time, 2) they are exempt from standard copyright laws and are under no obligation to pay. If they pay at all it's out of courtesy. And, the copies are still being LENT, not given.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Raptornx01 @perdricof
1) Donated physical books still had to be bought by someone first and then given to the library The whole point of CDL was defending themselves by saying they never, ever use digital magic to create new copies from thin air that never got paid for
2 replies 1 retweet 13 likes -
2) The question of how "exempt" IA is as a library from the typical boundaries of fair use (and whether IA is, in fact, a library) has never been tested in court They've gone nine years without it being tested in court and continued to push those boundaries and claim new rights
1 reply 1 retweet 7 likes
So if nothing else the idea that this lawsuit is a surprise, or that it had to be triggered by Chuck Wendig using his immense Twitter clout to force publishers' hand, is ridiculous
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.