Google Books

http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2008/october2008/googlelawsuitsettled.cfm

We seem to be moving in a direction that is not of our own choosing. Although GoogleBooks is a worthy tool, I find it distressing that it wants to be included in our OPACS (see Google Librarian Newsletter July 2008) and now we are moving away from copyright free materials to paid royalties.

The Napster trial of the early aughts considered fair use. Fair Use had been defined as I, the owner of the material in question (book, music vinyl;CD;mp3, film) owned the actual material it was printed or mediated upon as well as the ability to share it with my family and friends. This is partly how libraries are able to lend books.

However, Napster being sued by the big 5 recording labels found taht this was not the case. Napster unsuccessfully argued that it was still using fair use, that the friends of the person in question was just magnified to a million or more because of the interdependency of the internet. Napster lost and ownership was redefined.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6A17BB3944F3170788256A23005B515C/$file/0016401.pdf?openelement

"B. Fair Use
Napster contends that its users do not directly infringe
plaintiffs' copyrights because the users are engaged in fair use
of the material. See 17 U.S.C. § 107 ("[T]he fair use of a
copyrighted work . . . is not an infringement of copyright.").
Napster identifies three specific alleged fair uses: sampling,
where users make temporary copies of a work before purchasing;
space-shifting, where users access a sound recording
through the Napster system that they already own in audio CD
format; and permissive distribution of recordings by both new
and established artists.
The district court considered factors listed in 17 U.S.C." No. 00-16403
What we own is the right to view a book, movie or listen to a CD by ourselves, no longer can we share it --to wit:
Direct economic benefit is not required to demonstrate a
commercial use. Rather, repeated and exploitative copying of
copyrighted works, even if the copies are not offered for sale,
may constitute a commercial use. See Worldwide Church of
God v. Philadelphia Church of God, 227 F.3d 1110, 1118 (9th
Cir. 2000) (stating that church that copied religious text for its
members "unquestionably profit[ed]" from the unauthorized
"distribution and use of [the text] without having to account
to the copyright holder").

SO what all of this means is twofold: with the addition of Google Books to our OPAC annd its economic viability, libraries will most certainly face whether or not they can legally lend books without royalty fees of an excessive nature, much like we see with Academic Journals and periodicals.

Second and on a more personal note, the close future is one where you will no longer own the DVD, Blue Ray, CD etc. Broadband will eliminate the need for you to "own" a copy. Rather the companies that hold the rights will ask for a royalty fee for each and every viewing. Cable on Demand will take away your ownership of the hardware (Book: DVD) and allow you to only rent the RIGHT to view the material.

Dark Ages for intellectualism.