Slashdot Mirror
Top EU Court: Libraries Can Digitize Books Without Publishers' Permission
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.
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.
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.
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?
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
Reading lightly the judgement at http://curia.europa.eu/juris/d... - 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.