Since this blog is available globally, I figured : Why shouldn’t I try to brush up my pigeon English a little and get on your nerves in a different way?
The right to e-read should be transferred to the right to e-lend. That is what it is all about. There are so many media titles available electronically. The only obstacle that stands between the media and the user is that rightholders still have the right to deny libraries contracts for e-lending their media.
Here are some thoughts, why e-lending should be included in the next copyright reform.
GERMAN COPYRIGHT DRAFT
Referentenentwurf eines Gesetzes zur Angleichung des Urheberrechts an die aktuellen Erfordernisse der Wissensgesellschaft (Urheberrechts-Wissensgesellschafts-Gesetz – UrhWissG
– results from the ECJ Ruling Leenrecht
EBLIDA’s briefing paper on the CJEU case, the questions and answer raised. It shows that despite the ruling is done, legal certainty is not yet a given, and it doesn’t solve lots of questions such as remote access, or contract override. See here: http://www.eblida.org/news/eblida-briefing-on-the-e-lending-judgement-of-the-cjeu.html
– advantages and problems on the current procedere to licence E-books and other digital media from rightholders
– the entire catalogue of titles is not available for purchase (contrary to the paper book catalogue) so impacting the free constitution of library catalogues fit to their users need.
– Prices higher than on the market;
– Each publisher setting different terms creating a jungle of provision that mean different e-book titles = different possibility of use by the readers (e.g. some would authorise taking notes, other won’t, some will authorise partial copy, other won’t etc…).
– Contract terms impeding the benefits of exceptions and limitations enshrined in the law;
– TPMs impeding the benefits of exceptions and limitations enshrined in the law;
– Offers in bundle forcing the libraries to “buy” content they are not primary interested with.
– advantages and disadvantages of a legal term on E-Lending
– The recognition of an exception for e-lending would create legal certainty for libraries and would apply at national/EU level;
– A law would help making access to content through physical and digital means seamless;
– The law should allow for remote e-lending of e-books to library patrons by streaming and/or download as on the premises e-book lending is an incomplete service, contrary to the notion of a services in the digital age;
– The law would also clarify how authors are remunerated and would clarify the question of the cost for purchasing content. One of the argument being now that e-books are more expensive because it covers the cost authors would receive for their content to be placed on a library/3rd party server for lending.
– it would protect from contract override and abusive contract clause.
– would help working towards full access of publishers catalogue.
– I think a law would also help smaller publishers to better grab the situation and protect their rights, whereas in a licensing only environment, they are, as libraries, the weaker part.
I don’t see real disadvantage but the time it would take to be completed.
However, discussions on e-lending are already on-going for years. – alternatives to a legal permission for E-Lending
– è Fair licensing to comply with the 2012 EBLIDA Key principles of acquisition of and access to e-books by libraries that would result with a compulsory licensing
– possible variantions of rules and consequent changes of existing law
At EU level either the currently under discussion DSM Directive on copyright would include an article (and recitals) on e-lending with updates of relevant directives (Lending + infosoc).Or the lending directive itself would have to be updated to accommodate the question of remote access. Alternatively a reopening of the Infosoc could be a final (unlikely) option.