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 -
In IA's own position paper introducing the concept of Controlled Digital Lending they name "three pillars" of CDL that they themselves say *must* be observed for CDL to be fair use and not infringement (Well, six, but the principles come in pairs that make three pillars)
2 replies 2 retweets 22 likes -
1) All CDL scans must originate from a physical book that is legally owned by the lender 2) CDL files must maintain a strict 1:1 ratio between files and books, and files can only be held by one user at a time 3) Files must expire after a strict time period and be DRMed
2 replies 2 retweets 21 likes -
The Internet Archive unilaterally and blatantly blew up the Second Pillar of Controlled Digital Lending by removing the ratio completely and allowing infinite extant copies
1 reply 4 retweets 14 likes
Again, it's not about how much money people did or didn't lose from this It's about them making this huge massive deal over this legal theory they invented, then totally nullifying that theory because they changed their minds (because "it's an emergency")
-
-
It was this challenge thrown in the face of publishers "We are the leading library of the digital age You don't make the rules, Congress doesn't make the rules, we make the rules" And betting they really did have enough clout that they'd just surrender
1 reply 3 retweets 8 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.