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
-
-
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 -
Replying to @arthur_affect @perdricof
of which the only difference was the ratio. everything else remained the same.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Right, so they still... undermined their own concept of CDL
1 reply 0 retweets 13 likes -
no, they compensated due to lack of physical libraries. they expanded access in conjunction with the removal of access in the public sphere. so in reality, it was still close to a 1 to 1.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
The CDL position paper doesn't say that "close" is good enough, it goes into all this stuff about how much effort they went to to develop a system to carefully track all borrowing to make ABSOLUTELY SURE the system doesn't let two borrowed copies exist for one physical copy EVER
2 replies 2 retweets 14 likes
It changed from "We rigorously maintain the 1:1 ratio by the best technological means available because it's one of the 'pillars' of our whole legal defense" to "We have an infinite ratio but that's okay because there's a lot of physical books out there somewhere not being read"
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @Raptornx01 and
Like look set aside the moral argument (if you think morally copyright shouldn't exist at all and authors should be compensated purely through voluntary tip jars fine, whatever) The whole CDL thing is this elaborately constructed and technologically expensive LEGAL defense
1 reply 2 retweets 15 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Raptornx01 and
They themselves said "We put a lot of work into these Three Pillars that are the whole reason we don't get sued" (collecting the archive of physical books, the tracking system to preserve the ratio, the self-destructing DRM on the files themselves)
1 reply 2 retweets 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.