Gregory's Server@internetarchive @team I have to ask, when you started making the books in question available for lending, did you follow the proper library procedures, whatever they happen to be?
|
4 comments
@cosmictentacle Fortunately, grumbling couldn't do much because they were following the law, and their DRM which meant they only worked for 30 days meant complaining was a bit moot. During the pandemic, they started lending more e-copies of books than they had physical copies of. Trouble is it maybe be considered both a breach of the CDL (even though they still were DRMed and could be revoked any time), and massively drew the ire of publishers. Not long after, the lawsuit came. 🧵2/4 @cosmictentacle Trouble is: as a result of their 'recklessness' in the name of 'helping during the pandemic' by removing that lending limits, they have put both themselves and the whole Controlled Digital Lending mechanism into hot water. If they don't win, this could threaten every library that uses CDL to give access to books they own or are no e-copies exist, and will cost them greatly. If the CDL falls they now have to buy and pay for e-copies of everything they already own. 🧵3/4 @cosmictentacle I'm a big supporter of the IA and what they do, but I'm very hopeful that this case is resolved in a slap on the wrist and maybe a fine for breaking the CDL briefly, and not heavier punishment and deep scrutiny of the whole archive, and potential breakdown of the laws that are keeping them alive. |
@cosmictentacle They _did_, following the digital lending policies called Controlled Digital Lending, which is one e-copy can be lent for each physical copy of a book you have.
Unfortunately, they painted a target on themselves by being considerably larger than a normal library, and using non-library copies as the source (library copies are sold at a premium to account for lending it out multiple times), and in most cases used copies so they weren't even paying the publisher the 1st time. 🧵1/4