how is this any different from buying a book and circulating it? Amazon should
try setting up a different kind of account for libraries where they pay a yearly
fee, let's get real they'd probably make more money since a library would have
to replace broken Kindles way more often than someone on their own.
Fair use and copyright law does not appear to apply in regards to the Kindle
owner. The Kindle manual states "Digital content will be deemed liscensed to you
under this Agreement". This is what publishers were trying to push through
congress with the Millenium Copyright Act. It is the same as a EULA or software
liscence, you purchase a liscense to "use" the software as dictated by the
seller, you do not "own" the software. Copyright and Fair Use are irrelevant to
the Kindle consumer because they are purchasing a liscens to use the device and
the content. They do not recieve ownership rights. This scenario is remeniscant
of the movie industry in the 1940's. Movie studios in Hollywood controlled
massive theater chains, until the Supreme Court Paramount decision said that it
violated antitrust laws and forced them to sell their theatres. It is easy to
invision a not to distant future when Amazon and Google Books monopolize the
distribution channels for books. They will then dictate the terms of how
individuals can use the texts in thier liscensing agreements which are not
subject to Fair Use or related laws.
My coworkers and I have just run afoul of this exact thing. Amazon often
changes their mind on what you can and can't do with their Kindles. Part of the
problem is that one download can be put onto multiple Kindles. Digital
copyright is even more stringent and mind numbing than you ever run into with
traditional print resources. It will take Amazon making a decisive ruling or
lawsuits against libraries to really figure out what is going to happen. Many
libraries have been circulating Kindles for years.
Two points:1. Dear "Shouldn't be a problem": Under the "fair use"
provision of federal copyright law, certain persons can copy a limited amount of
text or images. A critic can quote a few lines in an article about the book,
for example, or a teacher could quote a few lines in a textbook. No way would
the "fair use" doctrine allow anyone to reproduce an entire book or article
without the copyright owner's permission.2. The BYU attorney who
referred to BYU's having obtained "verbal permission" for its Kindle program is
misusing the word "verbal," which means something that involves words, whether
written or spoken. He meant to refer to "oral permission," which refers to
spoken (as opposed to written) permission.
i think this is a great service from the library, and many other libraries are
doing this without having amazon come down on them over legal issues. it is
nice that byu wants to be completely honest, and i appreciate that, but if they
even got verbal permission, i say go for it. many libraries are doing it
without even that much.
It seems like this would be covered under the "fair use" doctrine. If a library
can buy a book and lend it out without permission, I don't see why they couldn't
buy an electronic copy of a book and lend it out. I guess lending the hardware
may be a different story, but I doubt that would be an issue in this situation.
This sounds like the legal people at BYU became concerned. Amazon does not seem
to have raised any objections
It doesn't say why Amazon's permission is needed. The only reason it's needed
is to avoid a lawsuit. It's not that BYU would actually be liable if it went to
trial, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't be sued over it.It's the
same reason why students at BYU watching a movie or TV show with a couple of
friends on a laptop in the lobby of campus housing will be asked by the RA to
turn it off, since they are supposedly providing a public performance, which is
contrary to copyright law.
It is about time for someting like this. WHen you can download books onto your
PC or your Pocket PC, then why not this route.
I guess it never occurred to me that libraries (or anyone else, for that matter)
would need permission from the publisher to loan out reading materials. Sounds
like more copyright hooey to me.Let the information free!
The 7:05 commentator is right that this article never gets to why the Amazon
permission is needed. Basically, it has to do with use of equitment
issues. Amazon would want everyone to get a Kindle and download the books
themself, so if you provide the service to people in competition to Amazon, you
are undermining the likelyhood of selling the service. I am not sure I
am making my point, and I do not fully get it myself. From the end of the
that comes with the purchase of the Kindle.
yeah, why is Amazon's delicate sensibilities an issue in this? Congratulations to BYU libary courage. This is the shape of things to come.
This is the first I've heard of this, but it sure would be great. I currently
gave 2 books from interlibrary loan and asked for a third today. As long as the
books were available, I'd use this all the time.
The article doesn't say why Amazon's permission is needed.