In this way, "uncontrolled" is not a fair term; rather it seems to be used for a specific, possibly unfair purpose by a specific side in this argument. The fact is, IA had specific, qualitatively-controlling controls on their lending, and anyone who checked out one of the books could see exactly what that meant. Nuances are important here.
> Essentially, CDL must maintain an “owned to loaned” ratio. Circulation in any format is controlled so that only one user can use any given copy at a time, for a limited time. Further, CDL systems generally employ appropriate technical measures to prevent users from retaining a permanent copy or distributing additional copies.
So what they are doing definitely is not "controlled digital lending", by their own definition. At best, it's semi-controlled, but the real essence of the "control" is the number of copies, so "uncontrolled" seems fair.
If they do agree with you that the paragraph you pasted is their end-to-end definition of "controlled," that means they haven't yet incorporated these other controls into their definition, and they definitely still can and should.
There's no singular time limit or definite requirement to define such things in this case, and IA have engaged lots of controls, from HTTPS and authentication on up to content-level media and time controls.
Sure, they can change their position. But A) I can't go off of what is potentially in some stranger's head and B) they would be redefining the term.
[0] https://controlleddigitallending.org/whitepaper
edit: I hear where you are coming from though. I agree it's got some "control", so you don't like the term "uncontrolled". But I think we probably agree that it isn't "controlled digital lending" even if it is "controlled" to some extent.
Also, why does it matter if 130 libraries said they were okay with the CDL program, since that's not at issue here?
Library CDL programs were still online and functioning the entire time. Only the physical facilities were closed.
As far as I know, most public libraries' electronic lending programs are using something similar to Rakuten OverDrive and are limited to books published in electronic editions and then leased by the library systems. Do you know of any libraries other than the Internet Archive that make scanned copies of physical books available?
If you find yourself in the position of needing a copy of Charles Ross' biography Edward IV (https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/m8Ojo6VI8KUC?hl=en), as far as I know you're pretty much limited to the Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/edwardiv00ross) unless you have an open research library handy. But you'd best make it quick, because the publishers want those copies deleted.
You could now try, if the DRM allows it, and the Internet Archive only temporarily during the lockdowns, through the DRM, allowed more than one person to read the book. That is, you could have had it for 14 days, but now you just couldn't renew it anymore unless nobody reads it.
I guess the correct term to use would be something along the lines of "lending that doesn't follow the legal definition of controlled lending" or something along those lines, but that is a somewhat unwieldy phrase to use as a part of most posts.
Uncontrolled does not mean zero constraints whatsoever.
Especially when used in opposition to the precisely defined phrase Controlled Digital Lending, where controlled is a well defined set of constraints.
No longer strictly doing something does not imply it's opposite.
For example, the opposite of help is harm, and no longer helping something does not imply you are harming them, does it?
These terms are the extremes of a spectrum. Noting that you are no longer on one extreme of a spectrum does not immediately imply you are now at the other extreme.
Control of a variable—in this case the number of copies lent—is strictly binary. There is no neutral state in which the variable can be neither controlled nor uncontrolled.
This is the crux of the point. Control over a variable is not what's in question. Control over many variables is, some of which were controlled and some weren't. In that respect, if you go from a controlled process where the variables in question are all controlled to one in which some of them are, it is not now "uncontrolled", it's partially controlled, it's also partially uncontrolled. There is less control, but it doesn't make sense to call it uncontrolled where there is still control over some variables retained, and we're still using the same context which applies to the same set of variables.
Arguing otherwise is a bit like saying discrete mathematics isn’t discrete because we can represent the number one by a line of arbitrary length. That’s strictly true but has nothing at all to do with the actual definition of discrete mathematics.
No, CDL very clearly outlines 6 different criteria by which it should work.[1] One of those criteria is:
limit the total number of copies in any format in circulation at any time to the number of physical copies the library lawfully owns (maintain an “owned to loaned” ratio);
It does not state 1:1, just that some ratio is maintained, and even if that one criteria were to be ignored, there are 5 other criteria just as important to the process, such as ensuring that each digital copy goes to a single person, and that the digital copy prevents additional copying, and that it's limited by time.
Whether they qualify for the moniker of CDL when not following one of those six criteria is debatable, but notably it's not what we're debating here, which is whether it's accurate to call what they did "uncontrolled" because it was called controlled previously (even if that's a name library marketing made up for this). Given all the other controls in place (likely every other criteria listed for CDL), I would say it definitely was not "uncontrolled".
You've not made any counter claim here. You've left me guessing which criteria you mean to include some type of control, so I'll go through them all.
ensure that original works are acquired lawfully; This isn't really about controlling anyone but themselves and is also part of what did not appear to happen in the NEL.
lend each digital version only to a single user at a time just as a physical copy would be loaned; This isn't meaningfully different than maintaining the ratio.
limit the time period for each lend to one that is analogous to physical lending; and In the absence of maintaining the ratio, the length of duration is meaningless, since the same person can just check out the book again.
use digital rights management to prevent wholesale copying and redistribution. Again, without maintaining the ratio, what control does this achieve?
>> limit the total number of copies in any format in circulation at any time to the number of physical copies the library lawfully owns (maintain an “owned to loaned” ratio); > It does not state 1:1, just that some ratio is maintained,
This is a difference without distinction. Sure, they could be loaned at a ratio less than 1, but they cannot, by definition, loan at a ratio greater than one.
> Whether they qualify for the moniker of CDL when not following one of those six criteria is debatable, but notably it's not what we're debating here, which is whether it's accurate to call what they did "uncontrolled" because it was called controlled previously
These are not separate debates. There's context behind the use of the term 'controlled'.
That only makes sense if you assume the ratio is infinite if above zero. This matters in any case where the ratio is not infinite.
> Again, without maintaining the ratio, what control does this achieve?
Combined with limiting the time period the lending is allowed, which you conveniently left out, it's controls the scope entirely. Even if you allow unlimited copied, you can change that and if the copies are all limited to one week and are cannot be copied by users, in a week you can have effectively reduced number of items lent to zero if you want. Without these constraints you can't. They are integral to the whole idea of CDL.
> This is a difference without distinction. Sure, they could be loaned at a ratio less than 1, but they cannot, by definition, loan at a ratio greater than one.
Sure they can. Their justification for why they believe it's legal does not allow a ratio of above one, but almost all the other criteria still applies when it is above one, and specifically, what the IA did was lend at a ratio above one. Your other points about how stuff doesn't matter if the ratio is one are specifically avoiding this point.
My point is simple. CDL would not work from a legal perspective if there was not some way to limit the time in which the item was lent and prevent copying just as it would not work if there's not a physical copy backing the lending. To say it's uncontrolled because only one aspect of all those parts that make the whole makes no sense.
That's akin to having a dog restrained with a leash, harness and muzzle, and after the muzzle is removed, saying the god is unrestrained. The dog is restrained still, just less so than before. The IA lent books in a controlled manner (an account is required, there was DRM, there were limits on length), it was just less controlled than before, because they did not back each digital copy with a physical one.
That there were clearly some controls in place means that it's erroneous to call it uncontrolled.
Feel free to respond and refute as you see fit, I'll read and consider what you say, but I won't respond on this particular thread anymore. I think we've spend enough time on this that it's unlikely to tread fruitful new ground that will change either of our minds, and we could probably go back and forth on minutia for quite a while.
[0] https://controlleddigitallending.org/