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.
As long as it's a 1 to 1 physical to digital copy this sounds like fair use to me.
Nope, they will need their permission. That doesn't necessary include financial compensation.
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.
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.
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 themselves via the use of gasoline or other energy, and instead use modern information technology like 'the internet' to accomplish the same thing virtually."
Yeah for logic in the modern legal age!!! ... sarcasm
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
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
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..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
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.
Define 'in'.
In short: good news.
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.
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.
Maybe he didn't feel like driving down to the library to look it up?
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 the item if the library burns down or if the city the library is in becomes a war zone and not only the library but other "local" locations that house the "offsite backups" are destroyed.
The deterioration due to time isn't going to be critical for most texts, but for photographs, paintings, and other material that may have been published on non-archival material, getting it scanned now sure beats waiting for the copyright to expire before scanning.
On this 9/11 anniversary, we have to remind ourselves of the loss that can happen when "the only copies" are destroyed: The photo archive of the construction of the World Trade Center was housed at the World Trade Center. There was no offsite backup. When the buildings were destroyed, so was this photo-archive.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
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.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Maybe advocates for those with disabilities will be able to broaden this ruling.
Play Command HQ online
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 different reasons. It is highly unlikely that libraries would support the former, and there is no way the latter was going to fly legally.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
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 the law - as long as it does not allow >1 person to view it at once.