Digital Dilemma: How a Court Ruling Could Change Library E-Book Access Forever - Ep. 62
Welcome to Litigation Nation. I'm your host, Danessa Watkins, here with my cohost, Jack Sanker. As a reminder, this is the podcast where we bring you the new exciting legal news from across the country. Jack, what do you have tee up for us today?
Jack Sanker:There's a second circuit ruling that could really upend the model that many local libraries use and could make it nearly impossible for libraries to continue lending electronic books. We're gonna get into that.
Danessa Watkins:Interesting. Alright. All that and more. Here's what you need to know.
Jack Sanker:So I first came across this story in the, MIT Technology Review. It's which was a a short article, but the further you dive into this, the bigger a deal it becomes. I saw some people kind of chatting about this on Twitter and everything else. And I'm gonna be relying on a series of articles that chronicle the progress of the actual lawsuit that were published on a website called, ARSTechnica.com as well as the MIT Technology Review. I'll do my best to keep that straight when I'm talking to you all here.
Jack Sanker:But I'll start for the MIT piece which was authored by, Chris Lewis quote, a ruling from the US second circuit against the Internet archive and in favor of publisher Hatchet has just thrown that promise of equality in a doubt by limiting libraries access to digital lending. To understand why this is so important for the future of libraries, you first have to understand the dire state of library ebook lending. Libraries have traditionally operated on a basic premise. Once they publish a book, they can lend it out to patrons as as much or as little as they like. Library copies often come from publishers but they can also come from donations, used book sales or other libraries.
Jack Sanker:However, the library obtains the book, once the library legally owns it, it is theirs to lend as they see fit. Not so for digital books. To make licensed ebooks available to patrons, libraries have to pay publishers multiple times over. First, they must subscribe for a fee to aggregator platforms such as Overdrive. Aggregators like streaming services such as HBO's Max have total control over adding or removing content from their catalog.
Jack Sanker:Content can be removed at any time for any reason without input from your local library. The decision happens not at the community level, but at the corporate run, thousands of miles away from the patrons affected. The libraries must purchase each individual copy of each individual title that they want to offer as an ebook. These ebook copies are not only priced at a steep markup up to 300% over consumer retail but are also time limited and loan limited. Meaning, the file self destruct after a certain number of loans.
Jack Sanker:The library then needs to repurchase the same book at a new price in order to keep it in stock. So that's a lot of information to dump on everyone at the start but what we're gonna be talking about today and that kinda sets the scene for this big decision from the US second circuit which granted a, permanent injunction against a company called Internet Archive. Internet Archive is we'll get into a bit is, a website where which often partners with different libraries to digitize, physical copies of books that the libraries have and create basically a digital copy or an ebook based on a physical copy and then to lend it out. We'll get into that lending process. It's it's fascinating the way that they actually do the, controlled digital lending in a little bit.
Jack Sanker:But you should know it's I'll tell you how the story ends at the start here which is there's a permanent injunction against this process and many, many, many libraries and folks that like to use the libraries are gonna be affected by this. So I mentioned this, a moment ago, the the loan limited aspect of how ebooks are obtained by libraries. And it's actually very interesting. The logic is that ebooks or at least this is what the folks publishers will say. Ebooks are limited in amount of times you could loan it out because it's kinda meant to mimic the process of how physical books would, like, wear out over time.
Jack Sanker:So if you lend out a book, you know, 500 times, like, it's gonna fall apart. And that's what the publishers will say is why they, limit the amount of times an ebook could be lent out. They're they're trying to mimic that same physical deterioration. And then once it hits that limit, you know, the book, you have to pay another licensing fee or something like that. Of course, libraries local libraries can and do get a lot of donations, from other people.
Jack Sanker:That's where a lot of their books actually come from. Whereas, you know, ebooks really ebooks aren't donated. So that analysis really isn't one for one,
Jack Sanker:as to, you know, how a
Jack Sanker:library actually functions. I'm gonna go back to the MIT piece, back to Chris Lewis here. Quote, some libraries have turned to another solution, controlled digital lending or CDL, a process by which a library scans the physical books it already has into its collection, makes secure digital copies and then lends them out on a one to one own to loan ratio. The Internet archive was an early pioneer of this technique. I'll pause there for a moment.
Jack Sanker:What they would do is physically scan an actual book, like a a paper book that none of us read anymore and, and then, lend out the, digitized copy for folks to read on their Kindle or whatever it is.
Danessa Watkins:So you're in some ways, though, you're relying on the the physical manpower of the library to do that. So that costs money.
Jack Sanker:Yeah.
Danessa Watkins:And then, obviously, the quality is probably not gonna be as good as, you know, if if
Jack Sanker:Yeah.
Danessa Watkins:You're getting it directly from the source.
Jack Sanker:That's a good point. But, like, at the outset, this is someone making a copy of copyrighted work. Right? Right. So if you're immediately if you're an attorney or if you've been around or if you're in the publishing industry or if you just know enough about copyright, this should be raising red flags for you already.
Jack Sanker:Going back to the piece, quote, when a digital copy is loan, the physical copy is is sequestered from borrowing. When the physical copy is checked out, the digital copy becomes unavailable. The benefits to libraries are obvious. Delicate books can be circulated without fear of damage. Volumes can be moved off-site for facilities work without interrupting patron access and older and endangered works become searchable and get a second chance at life.
Jack Sanker:Library patrons who fund their local library's purchases with their tax dollars also benefit from the ability to freely access the books. So the model here is that they have a physical copy, scan and digitize it, loan it out without, ideally without being accused of, pirating the physical copy. And and from the library's perspective here, so long as only one copy is being loaned out. Right? So the physical copy is out, the digital copy is unavailable.
Jack Sanker:Digital copy is out, the physical copy, you know, doesn't get loaned. Right? So there's never more than two copies going out from their their perspective. And I as I understand some of the arguments they made, you know, they're not, quote, unquote, copying it then. Right?
Jack Sanker:I don't know about that. But
Danessa Watkins:And this was a this was a wide practice? This is what libraries were doing across the country?
Jack Sanker:Yeah. We'll get into that. Something like sixties or so libraries had partnered with the Open Library Project to do this. Mhmm. And this, this process, I think, was I I don't know how commonplace it was, but it was happening enough, at libraries all over the country.
Jack Sanker:So I I wouldn't say that every library is doing this, but, from what I could gather, it was pretty common.
Danessa Watkins:Interesting. Okay.
Jack Sanker:Yeah. So the open lib Open Library Project which, partners with libraries to scan, print books to the collection and offer them as lendable ebooks. Basically, a bunch of book publishers, sued them to stop them from this controlled digital lending project on copyright infringement grounds, really just alleging the act of copying and lending the bulk itself is an act of piracy. No different than, you know, downloading a song to Napster. God, no one's gonna know that reference now.
Jack Sanker:Downloads music. No one downloads music at all. You know what I mean. Okay. The plans in this case were some names you might know, Hatchet Book Group, Harper Collins, John Wiley and Sons, and Penguin's Random House.
Jack Sanker:Quoting from the complaint, which was filed way back in June of twenty twenty, and by the way, that gives all of you, you know, non litigators a sense of how slow these cases can move. This case is over four years old at this point. Defendant IA, and that's Internet Archive, by the way, is engaged in willful mass copyright infringement without any license or any payment to authors or publishers. IA scans print books, uploads those illegally scanned books to its servers and distributes verbatim digital copies of the books in whole via public facing websites. With just a few clicks, any internet connected user can download a complete digital copy of in copyright books from the defendant.
Jack Sanker:The scale of IA scheme is astonishing. At its open library located at openlibrary.org and archive.org, IA currently distributes scanned digital copies of over 1,300,000 books and its stated goal was to do so for millions more, essentially distributing free digital copies of every book ever written. Despite the open library moniker, IA's actions grossly exceed legit legitimate library services, do violate the copyright act, and constitute willful digital piracy on an industrial scale. Consistent with the deplorable nature of piracy, IA's infringement is intentional and systematic. It produces, mirror image copies of millions of unaltered in copyright works for which it has no rights and distributes them entirely for purposes to the public for free including voluminous numbers of books that are currently commercially available.
Jack Sanker:Unquote. So as I understand it, the Internet Archive argued that the copying of books, in the way that we've talked about here, constituted fair use because they were, I suppose, transforming the nature of the books by copying them, from, you know, physical print to digital. That doesn't sound too convincing to me.
Danessa Watkins:Well, before we get into, you know, the the fair use arguments, I'm just kind of curious because what you described in the beginning as opposed to what was alleged in the complaint seemed to be at odds, you know, which is sometimes the way it goes and you find out in discovery that what's been alleged isn't actually the real facts. But, because it seems like they're alleging that these libraries are scanning in these books and distributing them widely. Beginning, though, is that they it seemed pretty systematic that if, you you know, there was one copy available electronically that could be used by one person at a time.
Jack Sanker:Right.
Danessa Watkins:But if somebody had the physical book, then that wasn't even available to disperse.
Jack Sanker:Yeah. I mean, the allegations, collapse those distinctions. I mean, these are allegations. Right? These are what the publishers are alleging.
Jack Sanker:It doesn't mean it's the case. Right. So they're not making that distinction. What they're saying is you're copying the books and putting them out for free online.
Danessa Watkins:Yeah. No. They're simplifying it.
Jack Sanker:And what the libraries are saying is, no. No. We're only making one copy.
Danessa Watkins:Yeah.
Jack Sanker:Yeah. And we're only, doing one one little piracy instead of, but that but, the point is is is it copyright infringement or not, you know, regardless of how bad of copyright infringement you're doing. Mhmm. This whole concept of fair use, I think it's worth taking a beat to talk about that, Danessa, if you could help me.
Danessa Watkins:Yeah. I got you. So, so the fair use doctrine, it's essentially a legal exemption that will allow a limited use of copyrighted
Danessa Watkins:material without the copyright owner's permission.
Danessa Watkins:So it's really like a balanced without the copyright owner's permission. So it's really like a balance between the interests of those holders of the copyright and the public's interest in creative work. The doctrine kinda looks at four different factors. The first being the purpose and the character of the use. So is the use of the copyrighted material for commercial purposes or is it not for profit or educational purposes, which would tend to lean more towards fair use?
Jack Sanker:Right. So for teaching and libraries.
Danessa Watkins:Exactly. Exactly. A second factor is social benefit. So whether the benefit of having that copyrighted material used in a limited fashion would exceed the the loss to the copyright holder. Here, again, it would seem that that would weigh in favor of the library.
Jack Sanker:Mhmm.
Danessa Watkins:Third is the market impact. So whether that use
Danessa Watkins:that limited use
Danessa Watkins:will hurt the original works market such as displacing sales.
Jack Sanker:Mhmm.
Danessa Watkins:The way they alleged it in the complaint, that makes it seem like Right. Of course. Yes.
Jack Sanker:They're displacing millions of copies of or millions of sales of copies versus just the one.
Danessa Watkins:Right. So that would just come down to the factual inquiry of, you know, what's actually happening at the libraries. And then the fourth factor is widespread harm. So whether the use allowing this limited use use could actually cause substantial harm if it became widespread. I mean, that factor, I think, is always gonna weigh in favor of the copyright holder because
Jack Sanker:Yeah.
Jack Sanker:That seems kinda baked
Danessa Watkins:in there. So it's definitely a case by case basis, depends on the facts of each circumstance. Just some kind of broad examples of fair use are criticism, scholarship, news reporting, and parody. So you can pick out sentences of a book, for example, and make fun of it or criticize the writing or use it in a classroom setting and, you know, teach your class about it verbatim. There's really no specific number of how many copies or how many words can be reproduced without permission.
Danessa Watkins:Again, it's it's case by case. But, generally, the more material that you're copying from the original, the less likely it's gonna be considered fair use.
Jack Sanker:I have a I have a good parody example. Yeah. Did anyone watch Nathan for you by any chance? No. There there's a fantastic episode where, he he pitches a business idea, which is just a one for one knockoff of Starbucks.
Jack Sanker:The the its exact branding dumb Starbucks. And then he, it it to according to the bit on the show, was circumventing, intellectual property laws by parodying Starbucks just by making a copy but calling it dumb Starbucks and, referred to the store as an art gallery and not a not a chain coffee.
Danessa Watkins:Mhmm.
Jack Sanker:And, I do believe Starbucks sued, and I think that they settled it. But, I would love to read a law review order quote on whether that actually was parody or not. Yeah.
Danessa Watkins:It might be too close.
Jack Sanker:I have a dumb Starbucks mug at home, which is Big fan. Maybe copyright infringement.
Danessa Watkins:The only other thing I can say is is, the courts will also look at whether you could get your point across by copying less of the work than than what you're copying. So, you know, maybe you only need a sentence or two, and you don't need the five paragraphs or the six chapters. But here, I mean, they're taking the full book.
Jack Sanker:So Right. Like and this is, this is enforced all over the place in different ways. I know, like, for example, if you wanna upload a YouTube video, maybe you're a film critic, right, and you wanna upload, bits of a film to talk about and create a YouTube video. YouTube itself enforces their own policy of a certain amount of time that you could play a clip for. I don't know if that's based on a prior decision.
Jack Sanker:I I bet it is. I bet there is a decision which says uploading a clip longer than, what, thirty seconds or three minutes? Three seconds. Oh, three seconds. Oh, boy.
Jack Sanker:You said you get three seconds. Oh, you get three seconds. Okay. My producer's telling me it's three seconds. But if you upload a clip longer than three minute or three seconds, you now have exceeded, you know, the amount that you really need to make your point.
Danessa Watkins:Right.
Jack Sanker:Otherwise, you could just put the whole movie up and then at the end go, I liked it. And, and then you haven't you know?
Danessa Watkins:Well, I was kinda when you told me what you were covering today, I was kinda curious how this worked with, like, Facebook and Instagram, where people add music to their stories or their reels. I there's definitely been times when I've added music to, you know, some reel I've made, and then I get a notification from Facebook that says your music may appear in some venues, but not others. Okay. So I kinda read up on it just to see. And there was definitely some agreement that Facebook made with, I can't even remember the name of the company now.
Danessa Watkins:But,
Jack Sanker:Probably record label or whatever. It was. Yeah. I know Sony had a had a similar dispute with TikTok.
Danessa Watkins:Yeah. Okay. So it's probably something like that. But but they you know, obviously, Facebook licensed the songs that it makes available to you to add to your Mhmm.
Danessa Watkins:To
Danessa Watkins:your content. But they set out parameters of, you yes. The limits of the time, the fact that you're what you're showing needs to be more about, like, the photos and the videos as opposed to the music that's behind it.
Jack Sanker:Yeah.
Danessa Watkins:I it's, you know, it's a gray area. It's literally case by case, and I think it's just one of those places in our law that you need to kinda tread lightly and
Jack Sanker:Yeah.
Danessa Watkins:Air on the side of avoiding a copyright suit.
Jack Sanker:Mhmm.
Jack Sanker:So that's kind of background on fair use in in in all this business. I'll tell you that judge Beth Robinson in the second circuit did not buy the argument that this digitizing and and, systematized lending, process constitutes fair use. In the opinion she wrote, that digitizing the books, quote, did not provide criticism, commentary or information about the originals or alter the original books to add something new. Internet archives digital books serve the exact same purpose as the originals, originals making authors works available to read. Later she said that in copyright law quote, not every instance will be clear cut, this one is.
Jack Sanker:To construe Internet archives use of the works is transformate transformative would significantly narrow, if not entirely eviscerate copyright owners exclusive rights to prepare, or not prepare derivative works, unquote. So the rule that for the fair use exception to the overall, body of law that is copyrights, did not apply here. The court had defined, not only that transforming physical books to e books was not transformative in the way that, you know, commentary or criticism or anything else would be, but it also had to rule whether Internet archives was profiting off the ebook lending, which it wasn't, and whether the publishers or authors were being harmed by this, which is up for debate. The court ruled in favor of, the publishers on all of those issues as I understand it. So, what's interesting is the burden in this analysis, and it's a it's for permanent injunction.
Jack Sanker:Injunctive relief in particular has a lot of burden shifting back and forth, which, like, I would have to go back and and read before I told any of you. It's been so long since I've litigated that. But, long and short of it is there is burden shifting when you're getting into weird remedies like that, particularly, like, permanent injunctions. So, and by burden shifting, I mean, it can become the defendant's burden to prove their innocence effectively on a certain element. So the burden in this analysis was on Internet Archive to prove that it had not harmed the publishers.
Jack Sanker:And, in arguing that point, they highlighted the surging profits of the publishers of the the four plaintiffs in this case, which is probably true. Nonetheless, the court rejected that stating quote, we agree with publishers assessment of the market harm and are likewise convinced, that unrestricted and widespread conduct of the sort engaged of by the defendant would result in substantially adverse impact to the potential market. And this is that fourth factor that we talked about earlier that's gonna almost always
Danessa Watkins:Right.
Jack Sanker:Go in favor of the copyright holder.
Danessa Watkins:Mhmm.
Jack Sanker:Quote, the publishers have not provided empirical data to support this authorization, observation, and we routinely rely on such logical inferences where appropriate, unquote. And looking around some of the statements that were made by the folks that were invested in this, it seems as though the publishers would, like, never turned over complete data on, like, the economics of how they were harmed. So there there was a bit of a complaint of, like, discovery prejudice here. And, we'll talk about that in a in a moment. But in any event, what are the effects of this ruling?
Jack Sanker:Well, more than 93% of public libraries participate in digital lending of some kind. Whether it is the controlled digital lending, like we talked about the one for one way or, or other ways. It's 93% of libraries are doing it. There were 62 libraries that were partnered directly with Internet archives, so they're all in trouble now. If they can't do this controlled digital lending method, the one for one, physical versus digital lending, as I understand it, their only option As I understand it, their only option is to license the ebooks via the subscription model that most publishers do.
Jack Sanker:And according to at least a lot of the briefing that was associated with these arguments, those licensing fees are getting, like, jacked up through the roof as you can imagine. It's getting more and more expensive for libraries to do this. Right.
Danessa Watkins:Well and even you said that you could only download a work for a certain amount of time. So I would think, let's say it's, I don't know, a year. They can increase the price of that book.
Jack Sanker:At the end of the year? Yeah.
Danessa Watkins:Yep. And I'm sure they're going to have some way of tracking how popular it is. Yeah. And then they're gonna jack up the price on the ones that are, you know, more frequently checked out.
Jack Sanker:Yeah. Versus, you know, the I mean, if you wanna put on, like, your, you know, financial analyst hat here, like, the amortized cost of a book that they bought ten years ago spread out over you know what I mean?
Danessa Watkins:Like Mhmm.
Jack Sanker:They buy the book, the book is bought, they have the book, they can lend it out, you know, versus this ongoing price hikes on, the book, as it were, that can go up over time. Like, the cost of of lending a book theoretically would go down over time. Right? You bought bought
Jack Sanker:the book.
Jack Sanker:The more times you lend it out, the more cost effective that purchase was. Mhmm. Here, it is the opposite. Yeah. So, there's an advocacy group called Public Knowledge that is brief in support of Internet archives and issued a statement afterwards which is helpful to understanding this, which I'll quote from.
Jack Sanker:Quote, controlled digital lending is a critical toolkit for libraries to reach their patrons in the digital age. With today's decision, the second circuit undermines those policy goals. We appreciate that the court set the record straight and clarified that a nonprofit's donate button does not magically render, a use commercial in nature. However, the rest of the analysis falls short. The court asserts bafflingly that the United Archive is is not entitled to statutory protections because it does not perform, quote, traditional functions of a library.
Jack Sanker:It is unclear what the second circuit, believes these traditional functions to be if not lending books to the public. This is a case about the future of libraries as much as copyright law. On top of funding shortfalls and in increasing censorship demands, libraries are being forced to repeatedly buy the same books over and over again due to publishing industry practices is what we're talking about. Mhmm. When libraries add print books to their collections, those books don't expire even when they are damaged, lost, or stolen.
Jack Sanker:Libraries have the specific statutory right to create new copies of print books and other media because the preservation of knowledge and making works available to the public is both core to the mission of libraries and the purpose of copyright. With ebooks, libraries have fewer options. When libraries want to add ebooks to their collection, they can often only purchase a time limited license after which the books expire and have to be repurchased. The court recognizes that the, result is regular renegotiation of ebook licenses that often come at a steeper price and for a shorter term than print copies of the same books, unquote. So,
Danessa Watkins:this So the court's acknowledging those issues, but, ultimately, it didn't sway Right.
Jack Sanker:Ruling. I I think the ruling boils down to, not great for libraries, but, copying look. Scanning a copy of a book just feels like scanning a copy of a book, man. It feels like you're copying it. I don't know.
Jack Sanker:I don't I'm not an intellectual property lawyer. Please, intellectual property lawyers, if you're listening, do not come for me. But it feels like you're pirating it. Like, it just does, however you wanna spin it. And unless there's specific statutory carve outs, which it seems like there are here, this is what the statement is referencing, to which this website, you know, apparently doesn't fall into.
Danessa Watkins:I could see concerns from the copyright holders about the security of the online database.
Jack Sanker:Sure.
Danessa Watkins:But it would seem like that, you know, these live whatever the 62 libraries that were using this company, I mean, that was they were doing their due diligence. Maybe they don't have the the technological capabilities of that company. So as long as you have, you know, a reputable company that's maintaining these databases, making sure that when somebody checks out an ebook, it can't be downloaded, shared, yada yada, that would seem to at least address the issue of loss of revenue.
Jack Sanker:Yeah. I mean, the loss of revenue thing is interesting because I I would I would put it this way. I think that publishers, would, you know, annihilate any and all exemptions or exceptions to copyright law if they could. You know? It's the fact right law if they could.
Danessa Watkins:Yeah
Jack Sanker:know? It's the fact that they're that library library excuse me. The fact that libraries are even allowed to lend books in the first place probably irritates them, you know, because they're like, you're you're getting your book for free, and we're not we're that's we're not making any money off of that. Yeah. So, like, the motives the financial motives, like, are clear here.
Jack Sanker:Like, this I'm not even saying publishers are, like, bad guys. I'm just saying it would make sense for them to want to annihilate libraries as a, you know, a concept. So, yeah. I I think it's interesting that the courts, you know, says that Internet archives does not perform, you know, traditional functions of a library because, like, it is just lending books.
Danessa Watkins:Mhmm.
Jack Sanker:That's what it does, at least as far as I know. I will say this ruling makes me sad, just because I like libraries, and I have some more sad library facts for you all. According to a report in Publishers Weekly, which was originally published in 2021, there's been a 31% decline in public library building use between February and 02/2018. That's 02/2018. That's pre pandemic so it's probably worse.
Jack Sanker:Mhmm. The fall in public library building use was, critical before the pandemic and a continuing high level of use of digital materials, so ebooks, will make that worse, the the report states. The report also acknowledges the contentious state of the digital library market which, the report suggests does not represent good libraries. And most depressingly here, there's a discussion about the way that funds are allocated within the actual libraries themselves because libraries often do, like, classes, day cares, or, things for
Danessa Watkins:After school programs. Yeah.
Jack Sanker:Yeah. All those things.
Jack Sanker:More of
Jack Sanker:that money now will be sucked up in the licensing these ebooks. So those things will also be diminished by this process unless someone could figure it out. Quoting going back to Publishers Weekly, report, quote, the investment in digital materials appears to have taken away significant funds
Jack Sanker:from that of physical materials and
Jack Sanker:the cost per circulation of digital material is material. In stark terms, in most libraries under current arrangements, it would be many times cheaper to give a patron the money to just buy an ebook rather than license a copy for the library.
Danessa Watkins:Wow.
Jack Sanker:Yeah. So libraries, bad shape.
Danessa Watkins:Yeah.
Jack Sanker:And this, this ruling, the second circuit ruling here does seem to put, the kibosh on, you know, one way that the kind of traditional library model could be adapted towards ebooks and things like that. So, yeah, absent bargaining power. Right?
Danessa Watkins:Mhmm.
Jack Sanker:You know, like, your local tax funded library, like, can't go to Harper Collins and demand anything. Right. Now I don't know if there was some type of, like, collective, you know, of the all the libraries that got to, like, a I don't know, like, a union or something.
Danessa Watkins:Like a statewide maybe?
Jack Sanker:Yeah. Something like that. And they can negotiate some type of deal, but why again, why do the publishers even care? They don't even want they don't wanna deal with the libraries at all, probably. Yeah.
Jack Sanker:So it's tough, folks.
Danessa Watkins:Do you
Danessa Watkins:think they'll appeal?
Jack Sanker:I mean, who knows? One of the statements I read from the Internet archives folks said they're evaluating, whether they can appeal. I mean, it seems like there are, evidentiary and discovery issues, kind of like process violations that you could get into that maybe give them another crack at it. But Mhmm. Overall, I I I'm not particularly persuaded, by the argument that, you know, copying something isn't copying something.
Jack Sanker:Yeah. That they aren't copying it. Like Right. However you wanna put it. You know?
Jack Sanker:If you can and now you can weave that into the narrow exceptions and argue public policy and and try to get it into the under the fair use category. But, like, you are starting from that bad fact of, like, yeah. You're you're copying the book.
Danessa Watkins:Yeah. And, I mean, once again, I think it goes back to the lack of control, you know, that the publishers have.
Jack Sanker:You mean once the book is in the hands of the library?
Danessa Watkins:Yeah. And if if they're gonna allow I I don't you know, where are the checks and balances, I guess, of, making sure that they actually follow that policy of a hard copy book is lent out and the digital one is pulled. A digital, you know, is lent out, the hard copies like, because they really have only I mean, I possession of one work.
Jack Sanker:I I never really understood that's what was happening, but I I use the, I use the Libby app, which which is, fantastic, if you ever get a chance to do it for, like, audiobooks and stuff. Mhmm. And oftentimes, I go on there and look for an audiobook and it's, like, this title is not available. What do you mean not available? It's not how's it not available?
Jack Sanker:Like, you you have it. You know? It's a digital Yeah. But I am I'm Okay. That makes sense.
Jack Sanker:Yeah. It's checked out. Yeah. I'm stupid for not understanding that they have a licensed amount of copies
Danessa Watkins:Yeah.
Jack Sanker:And they can only check out x amount of time, you know, at a time. So I would just be like my app's broke. You know? Can't get can't get the book. But, yeah, that makes sense now.
Jack Sanker:And it but so if they're allowed to do that, I mean, well, they're paying a license
Danessa Watkins:fee. They're paying. Yeah.
Jack Sanker:Yeah. They're
Jack Sanker:Which is gonna crush the libraries in the long run. Right. So it seems like it's just gonna become more expensive to borrow ebooks and more expensive to borrow physical books, more expensive to maintain libraries, more expensive to for them to put on programming, things like that. I mean, this is gonna be a financial squeeze for them. And that's just that's just sad, you know.
Jack Sanker:It's just not I mean, I I don't necessarily blame the publishers who who they would say they are fighting for the rights of the creators or the authors. They, you know, they will say that the authors are being harmed. You know, and and that's I understand that, but it's just yeah. It feels bad. Yeah.
Jack Sanker:Unfortunately. Mhmm. Well, the good news is no
Jack Sanker:no one reads books anyways. So, so, yeah. Just listen to podcasts. Who cares? Right.
Jack Sanker:Alright. That's the show, everyone. Thanks for listening. As a reminder, there's nothing stopping you from going and supporting your local library. Doing the research for this show actually really made me want to go back to the library, which I haven't been in a long time, start taking my kid there.
Jack Sanker:So we can reverse this reverse this dynamic on our own. But thanks for listening to this podcast in the meantime. And if you want to support our show, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, YouTube, wherever you get your podcasts. Leave a review. Give us five stars.
Jack Sanker:Help us out, and we'll talk to you in two weeks.
