Quote:
Originally Posted by jhowell
|
Read the comments there and the replies or lack thereof.
As pointed out by Chris Matthews of TELEREAD:
Quote:
Not a lawyer, but my layman’s understanding of the law leads me to doubt that any court would ever find Controlled Digital Lending to be a fair use. All four factors of the litmus test weigh against it.
Remember, the four factors are:
the purpose and character of your use
the nature of the copyrighted work
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
the effect of the use upon the potential market.
Purpose and character: This use is not transformative in any major way; it simply copies the entire work to digital. Not being transformative weighs against fair use.
Nature of the work: This includes fiction works, and fiction works have a higher bar to clear than factual works. Including fiction weighs against fair use.
Amount and substantiality: It takes the whole work, meaning it’s less likely to be fair than if it just excerpted. Taking the whole work weighs against fair use.
Effect of use on the market: This is the biggest factor for CDL, I think—if libraries are permitted to do this, it will utterly wipe out the publishers’ library ebook sale programs. Why would a library pay a small fortune for ebooks that expire after a set number of checkouts if they could just buy extra paper books and warehouse them and then check those ebooks out forever? It could also have a depressive effect on sales of regular ebooks by making digital ones so broadly available. Threatening to wipe out an entire market weighs heavily against fair use.
If Kahle thinks that he can get courts to find in favor of CDL just because Google won its own lawsuit, he’s badly fooling himself.
|
So is anybody thinking breaking a law that puts that much money in so many people (authors, editors, publishers, truck drivers, warehouse workers, bookstore clerks and, above all, politicians) is going to make it go away has been inhaling too often. And that's just books: do remember that the same law that covers books covers software, clothing, furniture, cars, games, music, movies, TV, theaters, and feeds everyone that makes, transports or sells any of the above. Among many other things not covered by patents or trademarks.
If the case doesn't see a summary judgment in the first session there will be more "friends of the court" filings hitting the court than books in the "library" . The mass of the filing alpne will bury the judge.
Here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE
or this:
https://www.purplekittyyarns.com/info/copyright.html
Or this:
https://www.popularwoodworking.com/i...ation-illegal/
The only people against IP rights are the people that never created anything worth anything.
Remember that Creative Commons and Opensource licenses are themselves exercises of copyright ownership. It is up to the creatives and their authorized representativds to decide when and how their creations can distributed. No some self appointed dude on the internet.