Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Top EU Court: Libraries Can Digitize Books Without Publishers' Permission

Posted by samzenpus on from the go-ahead-and-scan dept.

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.

11 of 102 comments (clear)

  1. Fair Use by style7711 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As long as it's a 1 to 1 physical to digital copy this sounds like fair use to me.

    1. Re:Fair Use by perpenso · · Score: 3, 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.

    2. Re:Fair Use by unrtst · · Score: 3, 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...

      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.

    3. Re:Fair Use by queazocotal · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

  2. "they will need to pay the publisher" by kthreadd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nope, they will need their permission. That doesn't necessary include financial compensation.

  3. Searchable? by ramriot · · 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.

  4. Re:Well now. by Anonymous Coward · · 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 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

  5. Re:ok by bobbied · · Score: 3, 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..

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  6. Not all libraries let you check out books by oneiros27 · · Score: 3, 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:

    • Keep backups of their holdings.
    • Reduce risk in letting patrons look at the mateirals (as they don't touch the originals)
    • Reduce long-term costs. (keep the physical books at 'off-site storage' (ie, warehouses in less expensive areas), and not have to worry about how fast it'd take to access them if they're requested).
    • Free up space for other purposes (meeting rooms, computers, etc.) while still having access to the whole collection.
    • Free up librarians. (many archives have 'closed stacks' where you request a book, and a librarian goes down to get it for you ... this means they don't have to do that).

    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.
  7. Re:Well now. by Luckyo · · 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.

  8. Re:Well now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Maybe he didn't feel like driving down to the library to look it up?