An NZ View on CDL

The National Library of New Zealand has donated 600,000 books to the Internet Archive to digitize and share internationally through controlled digital lending. Representatives of the library are delighted, but there had been pushback, including the usual charge of piracy.

It is refreshing, then, to see copyright lawyer Michael Wolfe pen a considered rebuttal:

In the surprisingly high-stakes, high-emotion world of copyright law and policy, the word “piracy” is a trusty old standby — it’s the allegation copyright owner interests lob at any use of their works not subject to total owner control. “Alleged infringement” or “legally permissible but sternly disapproved of by rights-holders” just don’t convey the same sense of urgency or alarm.

Without a doubt, rights-holders are upset at the Internet Archive and are, in fact, suing the organisation in the United States. On its own, the existence of a lawsuit doesn’t tell us much — litigation is a way of life in America, and copyright owners there have a long history of overestimating their legal rights and losing their biggest cases (just ask Oracle, or the Authors Guild, or Universal Studios). Maybe it’s prudent, then, to take a look at the substance of what the lawsuit is about

With that in mind, here is the controversial thing this library, the Internet Archive, is doing: they’re lending books.

In effect, libraries are choosing controlled digital lending to maintain the traditional library model in a world that’s diminishing it. In so doing, libraries are vastly expanding who can read what books and the ways in which they can read them. For many of us, that means getting little nice-to-have features, like being able to do a full text search on a book we’re reading. For others, like those with disabilities that prevent their reading print books, or for those who live far from physical libraries, it’s a complete game changer in access to the written word. Sounds terrible to you? Odds are good that you’re a publisher.

If this whole debate gives you strong feelings favouring either side, I hope you’ll agree that it surfaces important questions that demand to be taken seriously, not glibly. They’re also questions that demand democratic engagement here in New Zealand. The future of our libraries does not hinge on the outcome of an American court case. We write and enforce our own copyright laws, and as luck would have it, they’re currently up for review. If there’s a blessing buried anywhere in this whole kerfuffle, it’s the prospect that it might provide an opportunity to get the law on the books working properly for our books.

Hear hear! The above is but a snippet—there is much more in the article of solid good sense and it is well worth a read. And CDL and these questions demand democratic engagement here in the USA too. Copyright is supposed to balance the needs of rightsholders with the need to share knowledge. Digital is becoming unsustainable—and in the case of streaming only, often impossible—for libraries. It is past time to rebalance these competing needs.