Is this basically what they are suggesting here? They are supplying the copies, and it's up to the users whether or not they break the law from there?
> Is this basically what they are suggesting here? They are supplying the copies, and it's up to the users whether or not they break the law from there?
Copyright doesn't work like that - the party who makes the copy is the one who does the infringing.
If you want to use a traditional library analogy, what IA did was basically photocopy a bunch of books and put them on the shelf for patrons to check out.
Yes I know. It definitely makes sense in most cases. If I'm handing out books in a park then people should be able to assume they aren't breaking the law by taking a copy.
Maybe the law needs an update for this concept of a repository. Where they can keep a catalogue of everything regardless of copyright but the requester bears the clearly marked and advertised burden of satisfying the copyright rules once they ask.
I don't understand why this would be a good idea. Perhaps you could elaborate?
We already have libraries that operate just fine under the current set of rules. I think controlled digital lending is probably a good idea and something that should get more legal support, however.
That's pretty much what I was suggesting, mentioning copyright rules wrt fair use etc.
Does it make sense that a library has 3 digital copies of a book so that only 2 readers and a single teacher can check it out at once, with other teachers waiting for a spare copy for lesson preparation? Some update or codification based on the status of the borrower might be useful.
I think it makes sense for society to have unlimited copies available for teachers, journalists, etc as necessary to perform their roles. So this would mean some borrowers can borrow regardless of the stock on hand, while others have to wait in line.
The logical extension of this is we could have titles where the library has paid nothing or a nominal bulk fee, meaning regular users cannot check out copies but the above users could.
"Bad faith" has a specific legal meaning that does not apply here.
In order to obtain statutory damages, they need to show that IA did not have reasonable grounds to believe that unlimited digital lending is fair use.
Here’s a story about weak but reasonable grounds: Say I think it rained last night because I glanced out the window in the morning and saw the street was wet. You say it didn’t because you got up earlier than me, saw everything was dry, and you saw a street cleaner come through, making the street wet. Clearly you’re right but before I had this information, I had reasonable grounds for my belief.
>> The court shall remit statutory damages in any case where an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107
Specifically, the plaintiffs have to show that uncontrolled digital lending does not constitute fair use.
That doesn't seem very difficult to me.