> Yes, but in CDL the relevant variable is the number of copies lent.
No, CDL very clearly outlines 6 different criteria by which it should work.[1] One of those criteria is:
limit the total number of copies in any format in circulation at any time to the number of physical copies the library lawfully owns (maintain an “owned to loaned” ratio);
It does not state 1:1, just that some ratio is maintained, and even if that one criteria were to be ignored, there are 5 other criteria just as important to the process, such as ensuring that each digital copy goes to a single person, and that the digital copy prevents additional copying, and that it's limited by time.
Whether they qualify for the moniker of CDL when not following one of those six criteria is debatable, but notably it's not what we're debating here, which is whether it's accurate to call what they did "uncontrolled" because it was called controlled previously (even if that's a name library marketing made up for this). Given all the other controls in place (likely every other criteria listed for CDL), I would say it definitely was not "uncontrolled".
> No, CDL very clearly outlines 6 different criteria by which it should work.
You've not made any counter claim here. You've left me guessing which criteria you mean to include some type of control, so I'll go through them all.
ensure that original works are acquired lawfully;
This isn't really about controlling anyone but themselves and is also part of what did not appear to happen in the NEL.
lend each digital version only to a single user at a time just as a physical copy would be loaned;
This isn't meaningfully different than maintaining the ratio.
limit the time period for each lend to one that is analogous to physical lending; and
In the absence of maintaining the ratio, the length of duration is meaningless, since the same person can just check out the book again.
use digital rights management to prevent wholesale copying and redistribution.
Again, without maintaining the ratio, what control does this achieve?
>> limit the total number of copies in any format in circulation at any time to the number of physical copies the library lawfully owns (maintain an “owned to loaned” ratio);
> It does not state 1:1, just that some ratio is maintained,
This is a difference without distinction. Sure, they could be loaned at a ratio less than 1, but they cannot, by definition, loan at a ratio greater than one.
> Whether they qualify for the moniker of CDL when not following one of those six criteria is debatable, but notably it's not what we're debating here, which is whether it's accurate to call what they did "uncontrolled" because it was called controlled previously
These are not separate debates. There's context behind the use of the term 'controlled'.
> In the absence of maintaining the ratio, the length of duration is meaningless, since the same person can just check out the book again.
That only makes sense if you assume the ratio is infinite if above zero. This matters in any case where the ratio is not infinite.
> Again, without maintaining the ratio, what control does this achieve?
Combined with limiting the time period the lending is allowed, which you conveniently left out, it's controls the scope entirely. Even if you allow unlimited copied, you can change that and if the copies are all limited to one week and are cannot be copied by users, in a week you can have effectively reduced number of items lent to zero if you want. Without these constraints you can't. They are integral to the whole idea of CDL.
> This is a difference without distinction. Sure, they could be loaned at a ratio less than 1, but they cannot, by definition, loan at a ratio greater than one.
Sure they can. Their justification for why they believe it's legal does not allow a ratio of above one, but almost all the other criteria still applies when it is above one, and specifically, what the IA did was lend at a ratio above one. Your other points about how stuff doesn't matter if the ratio is one are specifically avoiding this point.
My point is simple. CDL would not work from a legal perspective if there was not some way to limit the time in which the item was lent and prevent copying just as it would not work if there's not a physical copy backing the lending. To say it's uncontrolled because only one aspect of all those parts that make the whole makes no sense.
That's akin to having a dog restrained with a leash, harness and muzzle, and after the muzzle is removed, saying the god is unrestrained. The dog is restrained still, just less so than before. The IA lent books in a controlled manner (an account is required, there was DRM, there were limits on length), it was just less controlled than before, because they did not back each digital copy with a physical one.
That there were clearly some controls in place means that it's erroneous to call it uncontrolled.
Feel free to respond and refute as you see fit, I'll read and consider what you say, but I won't respond on this particular thread anymore. I think we've spend enough time on this that it's unlikely to tread fruitful new ground that will change either of our minds, and we could probably go back and forth on minutia for quite a while.
No, CDL very clearly outlines 6 different criteria by which it should work.[1] One of those criteria is:
limit the total number of copies in any format in circulation at any time to the number of physical copies the library lawfully owns (maintain an “owned to loaned” ratio);
It does not state 1:1, just that some ratio is maintained, and even if that one criteria were to be ignored, there are 5 other criteria just as important to the process, such as ensuring that each digital copy goes to a single person, and that the digital copy prevents additional copying, and that it's limited by time.
Whether they qualify for the moniker of CDL when not following one of those six criteria is debatable, but notably it's not what we're debating here, which is whether it's accurate to call what they did "uncontrolled" because it was called controlled previously (even if that's a name library marketing made up for this). Given all the other controls in place (likely every other criteria listed for CDL), I would say it definitely was not "uncontrolled".
1: https://controlleddigitallending.org/whitepaper