Think you actually own all those movies you’ve been buying digitally? Think again; The Guardian, August 27, 2025

  J Oliver Conroy, The Guardian; Think you actually own all those movies you’ve been buying digitally? Think again

[Kip Currier: This article underscores why the First Sale Doctrine (Section 109a) of the U.S. Copyright Statute is such a boon for consumers and public libraries: when you (or a library) buy a physical book, you actually do own that physical book (though the copyright to that book remains with the copyright holder, which is an important distinction to remember).

The First Sale Doctrine is what enables a library to purchase physical books and then lend them to as many borrowers as it wants. Not so for digital books, which are generally licensed by publishers to users and libraries who pay for licenses to those digital books.

The bottom line: You as a digital content licensee only retain access to the digital items you license, so long as the holder of that license -- the licensor -- says you may have access to its licensed content.

This distinction between physical and digital content has put great pressure on library budgets to provide users with access to electronic resources, while libraries face ever-increasing fees from licensors. This fiscally-fraught environment has been exacerbated by Trump 2.0's dismantling of IMLS (Institute of Museum and Library Services) grants that supported the licensing of ebooks and audiobooks by libraries. Some states have said "enough" and are attempting to rebalance what some see as an unequal power dynamic between publishers and libraries/users. See "Libraries Pay More for E-Books. Some States Want to Change That. Proposed legislation would pressure publishers to adjust borrowing limits and find other ways to widen access." New York Times (July 16, 2025)]

[Excerpt]

"Regardless of whether the lawsuit is ultimately successful, it speaks to a real problem in an age when people access films, television series, music and video games through fickle online platforms: impermanence. The advent of streaming promised a world of digital riches in which we could access libraries of our favorite content whenever we wanted. It hasn’t exactly worked out that way...

The problem is that you aren’t downloading the movie, to own and watch forever; you’re just getting access to it on Amazon’s servers – a right that only lasts as long as Amazon also has access to the film, which depends on capricious licensing agreements that vary from title to title. A month or five years from now, that license may expire – and the movie will disappear from your Amazon library. Yet the $14.99 you paid does not reappear in your pocket."

Why Does the U.S. Copyright Office Require Libraries to Lie to Users about Their Fair Use Rights? They Won’t Say.; The Scholarly Kitchen, July 5, 2023

RICK ANDERSON, The Scholarly Kitchen; Why Does the U.S. Copyright Office Require Libraries to Lie to Users about Their Fair Use Rights? They Won’t Say.

"Let’s be clear about what the problem is here. It’s not that patrons who use library-provided copies of copyrighted works in a manner beyond the scope of “private study, scholarship, or research” are in legal danger if their use falls within the full range of the fair use provisions in section 107. Again, the language of section 108 makes it very clear that owners of such copies are entirely within their rights to make full (fair) use of them, regardless of what the copyright warning notice prescribed by the Copyright Office says. The problem is that the Copyright Office, under color of authority ostensibly assigned to it by statute, requires libraries to misinform patrons about their rights. Although library patrons are in reality free to make full fair use of copies we provide them (or copies they make on our premises), we must tell them – every time they make or request a copy from us – that they have only a small subset of those rights.

How much does this disinformation end up constraining patrons’ exercise of their full rights under the law? It’s impossible to know, of course. But as a profession that sees itself at the vanguard of the fight against both mis- and disinformation, it certainly should rankle us that we’ve been drafted into a disinformation campaign that affects so many information seekers so directly.

It should rankle us even more that the U.S. Copyright Office, the very entity that has created this issue and is uniquely empowered to fix it, seems to have no interest in doing so. I hope my library colleagues (and everyone else who cares about libraries and archives, and about fair use) will join me in calling on the Copyright Office to change the language of its prescribed copyright warning notice, bringing it into full conformity with what the law actually says. (I’ve created an online petition for this purpose, and encourage all interested to sign it.)"

Court Blocks Maryland’s Library E-book Law; Publishers Weekly, February 16, 2022

 Andrew Albanese, Publishers Weekly; Court Blocks Maryland’s Library E-book Law

"In a rebuke to Maryland state legislators, a federal judge has granted the Association of American Publishers’ motion for a preliminary injunction, blocking Maryland officials from enforcing the state's new library e-book law."

Information Access and the 800-Pound Gorilla; Inside Higher Ed, February 20, 2017

Bryn Geffert, Inside Higher Ed; 

Information Access and the 800-Pound Gorilla

"The first copyright statute, enacted in 1790, allowed authors to retain copyright in their work for 14 years. And they could, if they desired, renew that copyright for an additional 14 years. Congress believed that a maximum period of 28 years offered the “limited” protections authorized by the U.S. Constitution to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.”

Under the original statute, the Library of Congress, my library and any library in the world could digitize and disseminate without charge Miller’s, Flexner’s and Furtwangler’s studies of Hamilton to the homeschooled fifth-grader, to my 15-year old son, to the high school student in rural Arkansas, to the college student at a state university and to the scholar in Niger.

We have now, today, the technology to achieve the vision endorsed by our new (and possibly best) librarian of Congress -- a vision ostensibly shared by her admiring senatorial colleagues who, though they agree on little else, appear to agree on this.

What we lack and what we need is an old law -- an old law to serve new technology.

But first we need our new chief librarian to point at the gorilla, yell for Congress’s attention and beg the legislators who confirmed her to act in accord with the ideals they articulated last spring."

California's Legislature Wants to Copyright All Government Works; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), 5/13/16

Ernesto Falcon, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); California's Legislature Wants to Copyright All Government Works:

"AB 2880 will give state and local governments dramatic powers to chill speech, stifle open government, and harm the public domain.

The California Assembly Committee on Judiciary recently approved a bill (AB 2880) to grant local and state governments' copyright authority along with other intellectual property rights. At its core, the bill grants state and local government the authority to create, hold, and exert copyrights, including in materials created by the government. For background, the federal Copyright Act prohibits the federal government from claiming copyright in the materials it creates, but is silent on state governments. As a result, states have taken various approaches to copyright law with some granting themselves vast powers and others (such as California) forgoing virtually all copyright authority at least until now.

EFF strongly opposes the bill. Such a broad grant of copyright authority to state and local governments will chill speech, stifle open government, and harm the public domain. It is our hope that the state legislature will scuttle this approach and refrain from covering all taxpayer funded works under a government copyright."