Re: "If you didn't pay for it, you've stolen it!"
At 07:43 AM 10/24/03 -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
At 06:28 AM 10/24/2003 -0400, Roy M. Silvernail wrote:
The problem with the central premise, of course, is that without some Big (Brother) Central Server, there's just no way to track simultaneous usage, so there's no way to assure that the number of users <= the number of owners.
Wrong.
Why not have each individual's PC which offered to lend do the accounting. This means their PC must be on-line whenever someone who didn't pay wants to listen, limiting the number of copies available, but it could be fully decentralized.
Yes but it needn't be online constantly. What *is* a library? 1. A library is legal. A library needn't be licensed by any state entity. 2. Thus, I can declare my computer a library. The only requirement is that I own a license to what I lend, and that only 1 user exercise that license at a time. That is what a library is. 3. Among library-users, we contractually require that "borrowed" materials be not used after the "return" date. Since bits are bits, "borrowing" is "copying" and "returning" is simply not exercising the bits. When something is being used no one else can use the same. We use our library-patron-contract to implement what meatspace does with objects --usable at one place at one time. 4. We could implement this by merely keeping a flag for each file in our collection denoting that the file is borrowed. We would be obligated not to relend it until after the return date; the library patron would be similarly obligated not to use it afterwards (without checking it out again). 5. We do *not* need to be constantly online for this, any more than a library needs to be open 24 hours a day. We *do* need a shared timebase and good IDs for objects. A legal assault on this mechanism is an assault on bricks and mortar libraries, ie the right to lend a book to an associate. Even if that associate xeroxes the book without our knowing it. Perhaps these features could be added to KaZaa. (Simply: when a file is uploaded from your disk, you move it from shared to not shared directory for a day. You also have some lameass clickthrough library-patron contract.) Gentlemen, start your lawyers. --- Talk softly and carry a big lawyer. ---Hunter S Roosevelt
Major Variola writes:
What *is* a library?
1. A library is legal. A library needn't be licensed by any state entity.
2. Thus, I can declare my computer a library. The only requirement is that I own a license to what I lend, and that only 1 user exercise that license at a time. That is what a library is.
Well stated.
A legal assault on this mechanism is an assault on bricks and mortar libraries, ie the right to lend a book to an associate. Even if that associate xeroxes the book without our knowing it.
Perhaps these features could be added to KaZaa. (Simply: when a file is uploaded from your disk, you move it from shared to not shared directory for a day. You also have some lameass clickthrough library-patron contract.)
Gentlemen, start your lawyers.
Indeed. I'd guess the [MP|RI]AA wouldn't like this at all. But your point is inescapable and I'd /really/ like to watch this court battle. -- Roy M. Silvernail is roy@rant-central.com, and you're not http://www.rant-central.com is the new scytale Never Forget: It's Only 1's and 0's! SpamAssassin->procmail->/dev/null->bliss
On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 02:14:03PM -0400, Roy M. Silvernail wrote:
Major Variola writes:
What *is* a library?
1. A library is legal. A library needn't be licensed by any state entity.
2. Thus, I can declare my computer a library. The only requirement is that I own a license to what I lend, and that only 1 user exercise that license at a time. That is what a library is.
Well stated.
Not really. Libraries have to pay more than we do for their subscriptions.
On Friday, October 24, 2003, at 02:04 PM, BillyGOTO wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 02:14:03PM -0400, Roy M. Silvernail wrote:
Major Variola writes:
What *is* a library?
1. A library is legal. A library needn't be licensed by any state entity.
2. Thus, I can declare my computer a library. The only requirement is that I own a license to what I lend, and that only 1 user exercise that license at a time. That is what a library is.
Well stated.
Not really. Libraries have to pay more than we do for their subscriptions.
Be careful using the phrase "have to" in any discussion of legal issues. Does government force libraries to pay more for some subscriptions? Not to my knowledge. Do some publishers have different rates for individuals versus libraries and other institutions? Yes. Are libraries required by law to reimburse authors and publishers when they allow books and magazines to be looked at by patrons or checked out by them? No laws that I know of. In short, some publishers charge some customers more, and others less. In this sense, an Intel or a Carnegie Public Library "has to" pay higher rates to these particular publishers, but this is certainly not germane to issues of legality of libraries. --Tim May
On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 03:11:27PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
On Friday, October 24, 2003, at 02:04 PM, BillyGOTO wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 02:14:03PM -0400, Roy M. Silvernail wrote:
Major Variola writes:
What *is* a library?
1. A library is legal. A library needn't be licensed by any state entity.
2. Thus, I can declare my computer a library. The only requirement is that I own a license to what I lend, and that only 1 user exercise that license at a time. That is what a library is.
Well stated.
Not really. Libraries have to pay more than we do for their subscriptions.
Be careful using the phrase "have to" in any discussion of legal issues. Does government force libraries to pay more for some subscriptions? Not to my knowledge.
Do some publishers have different rates for individuals versus libraries and other institutions? Yes.
Okay, I'll try to be more careful. They are given a choice by the copyright holders to either pay more than we do OR to not get a subscription. Is this not the case?
Are libraries required by law to reimburse authors and publishers when they allow books and magazines to be looked at by patrons or checked out by them? No laws that I know of.
Books and magazines aren't guarded by cryptogremlins the way digital media could be. The cryptogremlins are embedded, "tamperproof", and are given absolute authority over their assigned treasure by the DMCA.
In short, some publishers charge some customers more, and others less. In this sense, an Intel or a Carnegie Public Library "has to" pay higher rates to these particular publishers, but this is certainly not germane to issues of legality of libraries.
Your position is that there is a difference between the set of lending restrictions imposed by vanilla copyright law and the set of lending restrictions imposed by private library subscription contracts with print publishers. Yes, agreed. I'm saying that there is an even wider difference between the lending restrictions on the gremlin-guarded digital media versus those on printed media. You usually don't have to talk your way past a robotic Pat Schroeder avatar to read a printed book, as you do with an encrypted scientific journal on DVD. Some of these journals have announced that they will be discontinuing their print editions altogether because they are fed up with libraries letting the public look at them. Some of the digital publications you might ask for at a university library are boobytrapped and crisscrossed with razor-sharp bardwire (not a typo). Librarians can't let you see it unless they have a way to bill you. http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/intro.shtml | Unlike paper materials, digital information generally is not purchased | by the library; rather it is licensed by the library from information | providers. A license usually takes the form of a written contract or | agreement between the library and the owner of the rights to distribute | digital information. If we're looking for a model on which to base this homebrew personal-computer/digital-lending-library, think of how "REAL" lending libraries are handling digital content. Suddenly considering yourself a one-man library doesn't give you any new liberties than you had as an individual, when it comes to DRM. They are dealing with the same problems that we are dealing with. If you go to the Library of Congress and protest outside of the DMCA review hearings, librarians will shake your hand and congratulate you on your patriotism. The way I see it, we're taking two leaps here.. One leap is thinking of ourselves as individuals with the same rights as libraries under law. This first leap has landed firmly. The second leap is thinking of our personal MP3s and digital media licenses (let's say online journal subscriptions, IEEE spec PDFs, or eBooks) on the same terms as we would consider our IKEA bookshelf of printed material. This second leap isn't looking so good from where we stand in 2003. I think of my PDA as a library. Hell, I'm Johnny fuckin' Appleseed. Most people are pretty generous with beaming apps and data around. You need X? What do you know, I have X. Here you go... Just hold still for 5 ... more ... seconds ... OK. Enjoy. My PDA already has a slot for SD cards. If the crypto-Nazis wanted to put a robot guard on my IR, BT, and USB ports, I don't know that I could stop them.
What *is* a library?
1. A library is legal. A library needn't be licensed by any state entity.
2. Thus, I can declare my computer a library. The only requirement is that I own a license to what I lend, and that only 1 user exercise that license at a time. That is what a library is.
An interesting idea, Major -- but unfortunately nothing is simple these days. Libraries, I would wager, likely have very specific legal definitions (for tax purposes if for no other reason). Regardless, may I be the first to request a library card? C
At 03:00 PM 10/24/2003 -0400, Cael Abal wrote:
What *is* a library? 1. A library is legal. A library needn't be licensed by any state entity. 2. Thus, I can declare my computer a library. The only requirement is that I own a license to what I lend, and that only 1 user exercise that license at a time. That is what a library is.
An interesting idea, Major -- but unfortunately nothing is simple these days. Libraries, I would wager, likely have very specific legal definitions (for tax purposes if for no other reason).
Many private libraries are non-profits or adjuncts of other non-profits (e.g., schools) but there is no reason a library can't operate as a for-profit entity. I think major is right, that at least in the U.S. libraries are otherwise unregulated. steve
At 03:00 PM 10/24/2003 -0400, Cael Abal wrote:
What *is* a library? 1. A library is legal. A library needn't be licensed by any state entity. 2. Thus, I can declare my computer a library. The only requirement is that I own a license to what I lend, and that only 1 user exercise that license at a time. That is what a library is.
An interesting idea, Major -- but unfortunately nothing is simple these days. Libraries, I would wager, likely have very specific legal definitions (for tax purposes if for no other reason).
Some libraries already offer a service similar to what I suggested so their patrons can read digital copies of works on- or off-line on their PCs. <https://194.109.142.142:1984/redirect.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.netlibrary.com%2F>http://www.netlibrary.com/ I fail to see the fundamental difference between citizens lending .mp3s and public libraries lending CDs and DVDs, unless one accepts a similar argument that only government recognized and credentialed people will be considered "reporters" under the law. steve
participants (6)
-
BillyGOTO -
Cael Abal -
Major Variola (ret) -
roy＠rant-central.com -
Steve Schear -
Tim May