Top EU Court: Libraries Can Digitize Books Without Publishers' Permission 102
jfruh writes The top European court has ruled that libraries have the right to digitize the contents of the books in their collections, even if the copyright holders on those books don't want them to. There's a catch, though: those digitized versions can only be accessed on dedicated terminals in the library itself. If library patrons want to print the book out or download it to a thumb drive, they will need to pay the publisher.
Well now. (Score:2)
Time to create a library that sells coffee and snacks.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed. And while I do look forward to a new reneassaince(sp?) for libraries in the light you described, it still highlights the obvious stupidity of the legal ruling. I.e. the court (from the /. summary) appears to be saying-
"It is legal for any citizen to view any library owned artistic work, if they burn the gasoline or other energy needed to physically relocate their body to the library".
*BUT*
"It is not legal for any citizen to view any library owned artistic work, if they do not physically relocate t
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe he didn't feel like driving down to the library to look it up?
Re: (Score:2)
Driving? Is that something like burning gasoline to physically relocate his body?
Re:Well now. (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't US. It's normal and expected to travel by foot, bike or public transit much of which is electric in Europe. Where I live, closest library is about 1km away, and it would take me significantly longer to get there by car than by foot.
It would similarly take me much longer to reach central library of my city by car than by public transit, which has a stop about 500m from my home and a stop in front of the said central library.
This has nothing to do with "burning gasoline", and this particular strawman collapses even when used on its own merits. And it's very obvious that this isn't what the court's decision was about in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
France on the other hand is mostly nukes. Next strawman?
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe advocates for those with disabilities will be able to broaden this ruling.
Re: (Score:3)
The thing is, as many a Slashdotter has pointed out, you can't accomplish the same thing virtually. If you let people download material from a library then there are only two realistic options. One is that you provide the material with huge amounts of DRM and interfere with readers' own systems in dubious ways. The other is that you create a blatant avenue for copyright infringement and inherently give it special legal blessing that is intended to protect the public resource of a library for entirely differ
Re: (Score:2)
The argument about committing crime being outlawed would be more convincing if basic copyright infringement were treated as a crime and was actually investigated and punished in some proportionate way by the authorities when it occurs. The reality is that copyright is in most cases a civil matter, which means that while the cumulative damage to a genuine victim can be significant, they are essentially responsible for their own protection, without any police or public prosecutors to help them the way a victi
Re: (Score:2)
The library could offer VNC/RDP sessions to designated book reading machines.
Re: (Score:2)
The ruling is simply stating "The public can view digitised copies of material held by libraries" and that libraries "can digitise material and keep it under their own control".
What's so hard to understand?
Re: (Score:2)
Time to create a library that sells coffee and snacks.
My local San Jose Public Library has a cafe, with coffee and snacks. I assumed that was common.
Re: (Score:2)
The Ramsey County Libraries all seem to have cafes and coffee shops. The one in Roseville has a Dunn Bros coffee shop inside it, and Maplewood has a cafe of some sort. Hennepin County Libraries seem to have similar.
from library standpoint, it's like US "fair use." (Score:2)
doesn't necessarily meet the US standards for personal owner fair use, where I can have as many damn copies in as many damn formats as I like... as long as I only use one at a time, and never get rid of the original source, which is considered the licensed version.
Fair Use (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Once it's digital, there is no 1:1 ratio. A simple Ctrl+C + Ctrl+V and suddenly it's a 2:1 ratio.
Re: (Score:2)
DRM
Google Glass (or similar small, wearable camera, preferably hidden).
Re: (Score:3)
So, you'd spend huge amounts of time, stealing words off a screen, in order to not buy a book, because you're too fucking stupid to spend the same amount of time doing something legitimate work for pay and have change left over for the coffee you consume while stealing said book?
Re: (Score:2)
Gotta love the analog loophole.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fair Use (Score:4, Insightful)
Once it's digital, there is no 1:1 ratio. A simple Ctrl+C + Ctrl+V and suddenly it's a 2:1 ratio.
The GP's point stands. That first digital copy does seem like fair use and a hypothetical second copy does not change this.
Besides, note in the summary "can only be accessed on dedicated terminals in the library itself". The app dedicated to accessing the database and displaying the book can simply not implement copy/paste. You won't be connecting your laptop to the library network and accessing the database.
That said, its likely the digitized text will get out somehow.
Re: (Score:3)
As long as its "within a library" it sounds like fair use. Its a public good for libraries to be full of books, digital or otherwise. The more availability the better.
If someone wants to go to a library to read books there instead of buying or borrowing copies, I'm fine with that.
The publishers and authors may object to the small loss of revenue it entails, but its a good trade off for society as a whole.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree that sharing a copy of a book in a library is fair use. But simultaneous sharing among multiple readers is not fair use. A library can stock multiple copies of a popular book and share them among thousands of users. But one reader per copy at a time. Otherwise your 'good trade off for society as a whole' becomes out and out appropriation. I agree that libraries would be great places if every book you wanted were always 'in the stacks', but you're not talking about a small loss of revenue any mo
Re:Fair Use (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree that sharing a copy of a book in a library is fair use. But simultaneous sharing among multiple readers is not fair use. A library can stock multiple copies of a popular book and share them among thousands of users. But one reader per copy at a time. Otherwise your 'good trade off for society as a whole' becomes out and out appropriation. I agree that libraries would be great places if every book you wanted were always 'in the stacks', but you're not talking about a small loss of revenue any more.
We're all damned lucky that the concept of libraries was established WAY before copyright (~1200BCE). I highly doubt the idea would be tolerated with so many people viewing copyright as something so sacred as you make it out to be. What does fair use have to do with this anyway? This is a pretty nice read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H... [wikipedia.org]
I believe libraries should be able to carry any and all digital copies of books and provide them in unlimited fashion to those at the library. I do not believe that would affect revenue in any noticable way. I'm quite confident an opinion poll asking how many people would go to the library and read books on a physical work station screen if all digital books were there... that would turn out to show very little additional participation relative to book sales volumes, but a not insignificant increase to library visits (they're already pretty low).
Directly relating paper books one-to-one with a digital copy is silly - it's simply not the same thing. At the same time, I'm drawing a very arbitrary line in saying people should have to go to the library. Perhaps they should be allowed to let people take home digital copies using the one-to-one physical copy restriction or a separate digital copy license? I'm not sure where the line should be past the library, but I don't see any reason to restrict it within the library.
Re:Fair Use (Score:4, Interesting)
Reading lightly the judgement at http://curia.europa.eu/juris/d... [europa.eu] - a number of issues are raised.
It is several times noted that it's a 1:1 based on physical books.
One of the most important reasons for digitisation would be to protect physical books from being lost.
Digital books, of course, can be backed up.
The judgement does not quite help with that - if a paper book is disposed of, destroyed, or catches fire - you lose the right to at the least display it - it is not clear to me that you have any right to retain the digital copy.
"use by communication or making available, for the purpose of research or private study, to individual members of the public by dedicated terminals on the premises of establishments referred to in paragraph 2(c) of works and other subject-matter not subject to purchase or licensing terms which are contained in their collections; "
This has some problems.
If you digitise your collection, can you only provide access at the site you digitised it at?
At any building in the same complex?
At any building managed by the same entity as the original digiser?
At any library with inter-library loan arrangements with the first library?
The judgement diddn't address this, they just said the fundamental right existed.
Another major hole in the judgement is 'by communication' - unless this is separately defined - one could imagine it being OK to connect (with DRM) to some dedicated terminal which provided copies of books via your phone or tablet.
The judgement also notes that it's free for national lawmakers to permit libraries to print or give digital copies - if the original publisher is properly compensated - even if the original publisher declines this.
This could vastly free up access to some books where the publisher is unidentifiable.
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to reread your link. Free public libraries came into being after copyright. Before then, the libraries where state (restricted to officials) or subscription (think Blockbuster). It is one of the great inventions of America, Ben Franklin, and Andrew Carnegie. They existed, but before this they were as rare as hen's teeth.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't to me. If I sell a book to someone and a part of that sale is a contract that explicitely prohibits digitisation, then they should not be able to digitise. The law should not be able to trump private contracts.
Re: (Score:2)
Law always trumps private contracts. Private contracts are enforced by law and dependent upon it. If I signed a contract that would make me a slave you couldn't enforce it (not with the legal system at least).
"they will need to pay the publisher" (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope, they will need their permission. That doesn't necessary include financial compensation.
Re: (Score:2)
What they mean is that, without explicit consent(which it's clear the publisher was refusing in all cases), that's just a royalties generating event.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but it's hard to imagine the publishers will just say "hey, go ahead, make them digitally available without paying us anything - we're not in the business of selling books or anything!"
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The library already paid the piublisher for the book. They got their cut, game over.
This is just enforcing first-sale-doctrine for the libraries.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Damaged books are usually repaired, not re-printed. It's amazing what you can do to a torn up book using some transparent tape and glue.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they paid for the book. But for how many copies to be used in parallel or simultaneously? If the library buys 1 copy, it can serve only one library patron at any given time. You can't go into a grocery store and buy unlimited potatoes for a fixed sum. The price varies depending on the weight you buy.
Does the judge's ruling imply the library can give all its patrons access to a book simultaneously while only paying for o
Re: (Score:2)
It specifically refers in the body of the judgement to not putting libraries that had digitised books at an advantage' - so you can't digitise a book, and show it to more than one person at once.
(unless you have more than one physical copy).
If the physical copy goes away, so does your right to show it.
It's not clear you have the right in that case to keep the digital copy.
Re: (Score:2)
ok (Score:2)
then the next big thing for European libraries is to allow vpning into the library network and remote viewing the kiosks through a webpage. Sounds fair to me.
Re: (Score:1)
European libraries already have e-book and music lending services. I don't have any ebook reader yet but with wine and adobe craprobat I can read them despite the Linux-unfriendly DRM. I had to go through some more effort to get the music lending service to work with linux since wine couldn't run the application. However, let's say that when trying to get any Linux program to play the music, I ended up discovering how to listen to what they have without ever having to remember to "return" (or "borrow" the r
Re: (Score:1)
Well, it should be. Craprobat is still very much applicable.
acrord32 (Score:2)
Re:ok (Score:4, Insightful)
then the next big thing for European libraries is to allow vpning into the library network and remote viewing the kiosks through a webpage. Sounds fair to me.
They need to allow the creation of satellite locations by their members and then connect all these locations (the member's computer) via VPNs... That way, I can just have my own living room become part of the library and read anything in the collection. Sounds like a win/win to me..
Re: (Score:3)
That's not required under my reading.
The full text of the original law referred to is 'use by communication or making available, for the purpose of research or private study, to individual members of the public by dedicated terminals on the premises of establishments referred to in paragraph 2(c) of works and other subject-matter not subject to purchase or licensing terms which are contained in their collections; '
It is quite arguable that VPNing into a virtual screen of a terminal is in fact compliant with
Sounds reasonable (Score:2)
If it's to be fair, though, there needs to be a link to the inventory system, disabling digital access to any book where all the copies are checked out. Wouldn't be an issue for reference books, though.
Searchable? (Score:3, Interesting)
Ok, so an EU library can scan works for access on their own 'terminals' for research. Can they also make those works searchable in a similar way to that which Google does? And if so can they allow access to that index (like their book index) over the internet?
If they can then at least in the EU Google has a copyright exception if it partners with at least one EU library organisation, to their Google Books project.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
That's a good point and it makes me wonder if perhaps that's how/why the law was put in place...
google has deep pockets and a way of seeing opportunities and loopholes a mile a way, i wouldn't be at all surprised if this law was created by or for a google lobby
And this makes things easier...how? (Score:3)
I'm still struggling to understand how digitizing a library and then creating these kinds of restrictions around the use of the content somehow makes it easier to use said library.
Today, I can walk into a building called a library, and check out a book for several weeks, and not have to pay or communicate with a single person outside of that facility in order to do so.
Compare and contrast that with a "new and improved" digitized library saddled with legal loopholes and requests as you simply attempt to leave the building with information in the same manner as before.
Yup, seems legit. In a MAFIAA kind of way.
Not all libraries let you check out books (Score:4, Interesting)
You can't check out a book from the Library of Congress. There are plenty of other 'non-circulating' books at most public libraries (eg, they won't let you take home volumes from an encyclopedia, textbooks when a teacher has asked that they be put 'on reserve').
What this does is allow libraries & archives to do a few things:
That being said, there are some drawbacks -- if the physical books are being placed into deep storage, they're not getting inspected, so should something go wrong (eg, mold start to develop), it may progress further before someone notices.
I'd actually be interested in seeing the full text of the decision, to see if there are limits as to how many digital copies can be viewed at once -- if a teacher puts a book 'on reserve', and the library scans it ... can 4 students view it simultaneously if the library only owns 3 copies?
Re: (Score:1)
This is not just about books. Think all the other paper that out there, including newspapers. How do you think they will store newspapers for 100s of years? Microfilm? Digital is much less cumbersome.
Another example is scientific journals. Sure, more are now online "as a service", but there are entire library floors dedicated to older journals that are not available.
As to number of concurrent viewers, that is immaterial. If a library has 1000 reading terminals, WiFi accounts, whatever, and there are 1,000,0
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
UK libraries do digital loans. You have to download some shitty DRM app but it is at least possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Digitizing a book doesn't destroy the original. This means that digitizing the book will have absolutely no negative effect on your library experience.
Instead it allows the library to continue loaning out the original without the fear of losing something that is out of print. Also, people will be able to read the book at the library even though the original was checked out by someone else or even lost or damaged.
I don't see how this is a problem for you.
Re: (Score:2)
No reason to require location (Score:2)
The only way to access it would be via wireless, and it would have proprietary software that can use an open internet connection to go to the libraries specific website and search/download/erase books.
This prevents people from copying or 'stealing' (quotes there for a reason people) information, but would allow the same functionality that a normal lending library allows. The boo
Re: (Score:2)
Just think... No late fees...
Thats kind cool (Score:3)
CopyrIght Sanity
Library
Cafe room
Profit!!!
Have the libraries set up small cofee/tea room sections where users can buy stuff and read the books on book readers/pads
Perhaps the first DRM use case i can get behind (Score:3)
Personally i think if they used proper DRM to ensure they didn't have 'too many' copies of a book out at a time this would be the best solution, and the one most true to the library model. Allowing this at dedicated terminals is a start, but I would really like to see a model that allows them to work as library should work, but without the need to to bring the physical book home.
Re: (Score:2)
There is not such thing as "proper DRM".
One benefit of this ruling is that when (if?) a work goes out of copyright, it will still be available, even though the publisher refuses to sell copies.
That said, current copyright law is so irresponsibly excessive that I have my doubts that (in the US, at least) anything will ever go out of copyright that isn't already out of copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you understand the justification for the existence of copyright. The grant of a temporary monopoly is not the purpose, it's the payment. And the word temporary should be strongly emphasized. Originally it was, IIRC, 17 years, and there are many arguements that this is now too long a period of time.
'terminal in a library' (Score:3)
Define 'in'.
In short: good news.
Re: (Score:2)
Define 'in'.
"In" means at an "dedicated electronic reading point" [europa.eu] in a publicly accessable library. Not necessarily the library that contains the paper copy. The main restriction is that libraries may not use this to reduce the need to buy multiple copies to satisfy demand.
This is great for scholars who really need to see some obscure published paper from 1982, and are not near a huge academic library. It's great for people who like to read out of print novels. It won't do anything for people who want to read the lat
DERP (Score:2)
"In" means at an "dedicated electronic reading point" in a publicly accessable library.
Why does that name sound so derpy?
Good. (Score:2)
Even if it doesn't have some sort of clear analog for home users, and even if it doesn't line up with the rest of copyright laws, a good public library is the cornerstone of a civilized world.
Pass a few laws that make for good libraries. I'll vote with 'ya.
Re: (Score:2)
When it comes to books and knowledge, the economics of publishers has to take second place to the imperative of preserving all the copies we can. Not only should libraries be able to make all the copies they want, they should also be able to share their copies with other libraries. The future demands it.
Even with the restrictions, this is great news (Score:2)
Physical good decay over time.
In principal, once something is digitized and stored on archival media in an un-encumbered (patent/etc.-free) published format, it will be available forever, without further degradation. Once the copyrights do expire (and except for rare exceptions like Peter Pan, the will), the digitized copies can be made available to the public.
Having digital copies also means you can have a second digital copy that is stored "offline and stored hundreds of km away," which is important if t
Typo in line 1: Physical goodS decay ... (Score:1)
Physical good decay over time.
Physical goods, like the neurons in my brain, decay over time. Sorry about that folks.
There are probably other obvious clerical errors, but I trust you guys can figure out what I meant to say.
Yet another Sonny Bono Act (Score:2)
Once the copyrights do expire (and except for rare exceptions like Peter Pan, the will)
How are you sure that the US Congress and EU Parliament won't copy Mexico's life plus 100 copyright term once copyright in early Pooh and Mickey works is due to expire?
no permission needed (Score:3)
It's a start. Lot of "owners" think they have such far reaching power over works of art, think they get to dictate what others may and may not do.
I've heard many a museum claim that copyright gives them the authority to forbid photos. It's one thing to forbid flash photography on the grounds that flashes put out UV radiation which can damage art. But they try to forbid photos, not just flashes. Claim that it would violate copyright, even though the work of art in question is long out of copyright, and they never held ownership of any copyright over the work anyway. The Alamo also claims it's "disrespectful" to the dead. A building near downtown Dallas, the Infomart, has signs that say you can't take photos of the building, and they include in that photos of the exterior from public locations such as nearby sidewalks. They claim it's for security reasons. Some museums reveal their real fears, crying that they will not have any more visitors, not be able to sell postcards. Was funny to hear this one old lady complain about the Internet ruining their business.
One place I know of that did have a change of heart is the memorial to the Oklahoma City bombing. They still have signs up that forbid photos inside, but if you ask them, they will tell you that you can take pictures.
Re: (Score:2)
The power to dictate what others may or may not do with a work of art doesn't come from the copyright. It comes from the license/purchase agreement the buyer agrees to when purchasing the artwork. Artists are able to get people to agree to those terms because they have copyright and thus exclusive control over sale and distribution. But dictating how buyers use the artwork
Re: (Score:2)
Automobile makers do not get to dictate what their customers do with the cars they built. If the buyer wants to chop the car, make it into a lowrider, put different wheels on, change the paint color, smash it, bury it, or throw it with a trebuchet, there's not a thing the automobile manufacturer can or should be able to do about it. John Lennon's psychedelic Rolls Royce offended some people. Some of these people had nothing to do with the automaker, they were just upset that someone did something they th
Pirates (Score:2)
Lots of pirates are too lazy to scan their own books, but how long until every book a library has scanned ends up on the internet? And the more so because people in other countries have more trouble getting to a EU library so this will be the only way they can access the scanned books. And I'm sorry but scanned, searchable, non-DRMed books accessible to everyone are more valuable than the status quo, so once again pirates produce the higher quality goods at a cheaper price and greater convenience. It's long
Legal Deposit (Score:2)
Natural extension of Legal Deposit [www.bl.uk] which has existed in English law since 1662.
It ensure that the UKâ(TM)s published materials are systematically collected and preserved for future generations.
Re: (Score:1)
It would nice if this was extended to requiring source code for all software/web pages, and HDL for all hardware/firmware, to be deposited. It is, after all, part of the intellectual record and publishing heritage of the nation.
I suppose this material wouldn't necessarily have to be released to the public right away, to provide a reasonable period of time of protection for trade secrets.
Is anything along those lines being pursued?
I would like to get paid to read (Score:1)