Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Top-level
Rich Jeffery

@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

2 comments
Rich Jeffery

@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

Rich Jeffery

@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.

Go Up