More to the point, the lawsuits are in effect and moving forward now, long after the NEL has ceased operations. They are directed at the CDL now.
But it is still a pretty big shift in "how to count" that maybe would have gone over better if discussed first. But let's be realistic, the publishers would have done the same thing. They do it over and over again. A lawsuit seems like an unfortunate but probably only sane way to determine if this new counting method is legal enough to pass muster.
I think counting books in libraries you have formally partnered with that are literally locked behind closed doors is extremely reasonable, but I also think copyrights should last like 20-30 years tops so I doubt that I'm in the mainstream.
Seriously, I can't fathom why anyone would say that copyright should last longer than patents
If copyright is primarily an economic tool, intended to create market forces similar to other products and services in order to promote activity within the creative sector, then a much shorter copyright period is perfectly justifiable. The few works that still make significant money after several decades usually also made huge money in the decades before, so copyright would still provide a strong incentive to create and share such works.
One interesting thing about modern economic models supported by copyright is that they do make more of the long tail viable: a work aimed at a relatively small niche or with unusually high production costs can still be economic to produce if you can recoup the costs over a longer period, and with digital storage and distribution this becomes more practical. But even then, how many works would be viable after 40 or 50 or 100 years but not after 20 or 30?
Assuming you wanted to use the assumption that patents last as long as copyrights, I have a hard time imagining how a patent wouldn't be even easier to make money with given that a patent is far broader and inventions probably "remix" old inventions even more than cultural touchstones. Just imagine if "jet engines" or "wings" or "AC electrical grid" or "power transformer" were still under patent as broadly patented approaches to solving engineering problems.
Oof. Society might collapse, but I'm sure someone would make money hand over fist on the way down...
At least copyright allows fair use and remixing to an extent, no such luck with patents.
I don't mind disney having copyright on mickey mouse for 100 years. I do mind locking away a promising technology for 50.
I think the article implies that without explicitly saying it. Their own announcements and FAQs about the NEL certainly didn't say that.
Is this controlled digital lending?
No. It is close to controlled digital lending but is significantly different while waitlists are suspended. This library is being mobilized in response to a global pandemic and US national emergency. It shares aspects of controlled digital lending by controlling the physical book that was scanned and the redistribution of files through digital rights management software, but differs by having no waitlists for users borrowing books. Once the US national emergency is over and waitlists are back to their normal capacity, the service will return to full controlled digital lending.
As for the lawsuit going on after they stopped lending, well yeah the legal matter wasn't settled, so it can go on.
Their best bet is probably to shame the publishers into dropping the suit, since they won't actually win if it comes down to it.
I assume that's what this is meant to do: shame the publishers.
If you own a book and I buy it but under a deal that defines you should keep it locked up in a safe. I still own it and have the right to lend it out digitally under CDL, yet it's physically with you. Why is it strange to forgo that madness and just let me provide digital lending services on your behalf? I mean just because it's my lending system doesn't mean I should need to own everything that's being lend out. Amazon doesn't have to own everything they sell.
The article seems somewhat fuzzy on that...
I think the debate will be if making a digital copy and locking the original book in a safe is equivalent, and if I were a judge, I would say "no", because to say otherwise significantly weakens copyright in so many other ways.
They are directed at the CDL as a target of opportunity. Their raison d'etre is for damages from the NEL period.
AIUI in all previous communications about the NEL, they claimed they were doing the former, i.e. "effectively" removing all limits to legitimate lending, regardless of the previous 1:1 ratio. But there was plenty of speculation that the real mechanism behind the NEL was the latter, i.e. partnering with outside libraries to expand the physical holdings they could lend out via CDL.
I read this as not increasing the book pool, but saying, "We own Book A. Our endorsing libraries have a total of 9 copies of Book A." However, instead of now offering 10 copies of Book A (which would have adhered to 1:1), they offered unlimited loans, which certainly breaks 1:1.