News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Internet Archive responds to publishers’ lawsuit by Spivak on Thursday July 30, 2020 @11:57AM (#23999644)
This really doesn’t matter because the work was duplicated regardless of the fact that it was time limited. They had a limited number of licenses to produce works and they produced more than that. Doesn’t matter if it was for 5 days or 5 minutes.

If I own a DVD and distribute more than copy simultaneously even if it’s time limited and even if I keep the DRM I’ve still violated copyright.

Re:Internet Archive responds to publishers’ lawsuit by nitrogen on Thursday July 30, 2020 @12:21PM (#23999938)
Physical books do not come with licenses. Lending falls under first sale doctrine.
Re:Internet Archive responds to publishers’ lawsuit by Spivak on Thursday July 30, 2020 @04:04PM (#24002311)
Right, but digital lending looks a lot more like software licenses where libraries buy "seats" that correspond the number of simultaneous borrowers. If you have more borrowers than seats you've violated copyright.

Most libraries work with publishers to buy lending rights directly but IA is arguing that if I hold one physical copy of a work and promise not to "perform" (copyright jargon is odd) it while it's in my possession then I may transmit that work digitally to another person kinda bridging first sale and seats of digital lending licenses.

I guess we'll find out if the court buys it. Because under normal circumstances this is open and shut copyright violation.