> This appeal presents the following question: Is it “fair use” for a
nonprofit organization to scan copyright-protected print books in their
entirety, and distribute those digital copies online, in full, for free, subject to
a one-to-one owned-to-loaned ratio between its print copies and the digital
copies it makes available at any given time, all without authorization from
the copyright-holding publishers or authors? Applying the relevant
provisions of the Copyright Act as well as binding Supreme Court and
Second Circuit precedent, we conclude the answer is no.
When the conclusion is so obviously incorrect, we should examine the underlying precedent that leads us to such an erroneous conclusion. This precedent should give us pause. They're restricting a NONPROFITs to distribute legally purchased print media in a way that the publishers don't want.
And this seems to be the justification:
> In addition to selling traditional print books, Publishers collectively invest
millions of dollars in developing new formats and markets suited for the digital
age, including the eBook market.
> Here, by contrast, IA’s Free Digital Library offers few efficiencies beyond
those already offered by Publishers’ own eBooks. IA argues that its use is more
efficient because it “replace[s] the burdens of physical transportation with the
benefits of digital technology,” but this ignores the fact that IA’s digital books
compete directly with Publishers’ eBooks―works derivative of the original print
books.
This is an assault on free-use, libraries, and collective sharing of knowledge. If I buy a physical book, I can give it to anyone I want because the laws of yore did not see societal benefit to prohibiting this. I'm quite certain that these companies would prohibit the practice, if they could. The law is the only thing protecting the commons.
The argument here is essentially, "these companies are spending millions to distribute their IP digitally, so we should shield them from Open standards that would negatively impact their profits". "Your work isn't transformative, because we've already done a similar transformation". They're wielding a proprietary implementation as a hammer to crush open knowledge. The internet should be a tool to facilitate knowledge-sharing for the betterment of our entire species, not a weapon to stifle knowledge for the sake of corporate profits.
Illegal archiving seems to be the only way forward, for example making a personal archive you can share with family and friends, and supporting bigger efforts like library genesis and anna's archive are the only way we can ensure that stuff actually is still available in a 100 years. fuck the copyright lobby.
> When the conclusion is so obviously incorrect, we should examine the underlying precedent that leads us to such an erroneous conclusion. This precedent should give us pause. They're restricting a NONPROFITs to distribute legally purchased print media in a way that the publishers don't want.
This is nonsense. They are not distributing "legally purchased print media", they are VERY literally distributing digital copies of the original legally purchased print media.
This is because you cannot buy and then lend an e-book. You can do it with a physical book but you cannot with a digital book due to DRM. IA was trying to work around this and failed. As a result, buyers of digital books cannot enjoy the same rights the buyers of physical books have; it means people have less rights now.
You do not get to break the law just because you are working around some sort of restriction. The law says what it says and the judge is correct that IA violated it.
Different laws may be in conflict, and you have to resolve it one way or the other. For example if copyright law would prevent you from repairing your device (like you need to put a coprighted image of an Xbox logo on your hard disk for it to be recognised) then your repair right may trump the distribution rights of the copyright owner.
Copyright law is also already an infringement of your right to free speech and the constitution only allows coypright and similar restrictions under very limited conditions, which can be argued are not respected by current copyright laws.
Your link isn't a judgment about the law. It is the copyright office inventing an exception to the law, as the law explicitly permits it to do, and as it does conservatively and rarely. This did not happen for CDL. There's no conflict here. There is plain comprehensible law and IA plainly and comprehensibly violated it. They could have waited for an exception from the copyright office. They did not. Although none would have come.
When the conclusion is so obviously incorrect, we should examine the underlying precedent that leads us to such an erroneous conclusion. This precedent should give us pause. They're restricting a NONPROFITs to distribute legally purchased print media in a way that the publishers don't want.
And this seems to be the justification:
> In addition to selling traditional print books, Publishers collectively invest millions of dollars in developing new formats and markets suited for the digital age, including the eBook market.
> Here, by contrast, IA’s Free Digital Library offers few efficiencies beyond those already offered by Publishers’ own eBooks. IA argues that its use is more efficient because it “replace[s] the burdens of physical transportation with the benefits of digital technology,” but this ignores the fact that IA’s digital books compete directly with Publishers’ eBooks―works derivative of the original print books.
This is an assault on free-use, libraries, and collective sharing of knowledge. If I buy a physical book, I can give it to anyone I want because the laws of yore did not see societal benefit to prohibiting this. I'm quite certain that these companies would prohibit the practice, if they could. The law is the only thing protecting the commons.
The argument here is essentially, "these companies are spending millions to distribute their IP digitally, so we should shield them from Open standards that would negatively impact their profits". "Your work isn't transformative, because we've already done a similar transformation". They're wielding a proprietary implementation as a hammer to crush open knowledge. The internet should be a tool to facilitate knowledge-sharing for the betterment of our entire species, not a weapon to stifle knowledge for the sake of corporate profits.