That's simply not true about their format. Heck I still have copies of books around, they're not protected in any way. And this would not be part of court opinion but in fact finding.

Could be it was 14 days. Don't remember. I remember it as 30 though. That's kind of besides the point though.

The lending model isn't in question, or it is but its not really the core issue. Them distributing illegal copies though is. That's why no, you cannot just exempt distributing digital copies if the original is held. You've still made an illegal copy that you're now distributing. You have to make the copying itself legal in order to make the distribution legal. And if you make the copying legal, well now nothing is stopping you from selling those copies and thus copyright falls. You'd have to completely redo the entire copyright system from the ground up to focus on the distribution instead for your proposal to work but copyright is about the copying, not the distribution.

And there's just so many things wrong with your examples. You can record a show on tv yes, but you cannot distribute that. Or specifically, you cannot record it either if your purpose is to distribute it. You're only allowed to make such copies for personal use, IA is not making copies for personal use.

What you can and cannot copy for a classroom lesson is controlled by deals the school makes. It never allows for copying entire books. For critique, you're again not allowed to just copy the entire thing. It's not that you can't make exemptions, but IA's copying cannot be made an exemption without copyright as a whole falling. I'm all for that, but it's not going to happen.

Then you commit a crime. Not by retaining the copy but by making it. You generally cannot commit a crime by passivity though such as by not doing something. So simply retaining a copy you legally acquired cannot be illegal. As a comparison, if you rent a car, but never return it, then that's not a crime. It's generally called theft by conversion but it's a civil matter, not a criminal one. In IA's case though, they were the one making that copy. That you could commit the same crime another way doesn't really absolve theirs.

It is though. Unless the library gets their books for free, which isn't normal, then they buy the books at a cost. But books have a limited lifespan. The more it's lent out the more it gets worn and eventually it's thrown away and replaced by, buying another copy, which is another cost. That results in that every lending does cost.

First sale doctrine doesn't apply between conpanies no. When it's two companies, and both libraries and authors are companies, then the contract terms apply. There are no consumer protections between them. That being said, I don't mean necessarily in terms of public lending rights as some countries have but rather that a book has a limited lifespan before it falls apart and library has to buy another copy. They can't just print out missing pages and stuff like that. So there is that cost of buying (and library books tend to be more expensive because sturdier binding and pages), divided by number of times it was able to be lent out.

So first of all, I don't think you ever looked at their system. When you checked out a book, it was a complete honor system that you deleted the file. There was no returning of anything. They just didn't lend it out again for 30 days, which was the time after which you were supposed to delete the file, but no checks were ever done. You didn't even have to go in and click a button promising that you had. It WAS freely, and you even admit that it wasn't even restricted at all for months.

It's not at all as normal libraries. Libraries pay vast sums to be allowed to operate as they do. Every time a book is checked out in a library, the library pays, IA wasn't.

And 300 authors asking to drop it means there's millions that didn't... That's REALLY not an argument in favor of your position as you seem to think.

All that being said, as for changing the law, well, to make what IA did legal, you would either have to make IA immune to copyright or abolish copyright entirely. It's not a matter of that WHAT they did should be legal because what they did is the very core of what copyright was designed to stop. Heck, regular old piracy being covered is the side effect, THIS is the core.

Abolishing copyright isn't going to happen any time soon, even if it is the option I personally would vote for, and making IA as they are immune to copyright is just plain never going to happen. The most likely you could hope for is that a governmental institution is created that takes on the role and is immune, but even that is a very, VERY far fetch. This outcome was clear from the beginning, and IA should have known that long before they began the project.

I thought you wanted for how the system partition worked. That sizes are chipset dependent, is just experience. I'd suggest reading a lot on xda but I can't point to anything specific.

About selling without google play. Well, huawei is doing so, so you can, they have their own store. It's just not all that popular.

>Do you have a source for this?

https://source.android.com/docs/core/architecture/partitions/system-as-root

>And do you have a source for this?

https://www.android.com/versions/go-edition/

While you could do aosp, since that's apache license, you can't use google play services for it unless you conform to their stricter licenses, such as for low end devices with 2gb of ram and/or 16gb storage, you're only licensed for android go, not full android.

No. That's not how it works. Again, the preinstalled apps only ever compete with other preinstalled. You cannot use that space for regular play store installed apps. Ever. The area isn't writable and has a size that is fixed based on the chipset that is being used.

Also, as someone that has actually used a 16gb 6s recently... You're just dead wrong on how much apple use up by the system. Out of those 16, less than 1g was actually available for use, with every single optional app removed. System itself takes up about 8 and "Other" takes up the rest.

Also, if you're running a 12g android on a 16g phone... Stop using chinese copies that are breaking licenses. 12G means it's full android, which isn't allowed on 16G phones and hasn't been for a long time. These days, 64G minimum for full android. Below that and it should be Android Go which is a stripped down version specifically for low end phones. It only uses about 5G for the system partition (where bundled apps go) as a maximum, though most roms will be even less.

Apps you can only disable, are stored on a completely different segment of the rom. The space was never available for your play apps in the first place. The only thing preinstalled apps are competing for space with, are other preinstalled apps.