This article examines the question of whether the public lending right (PLR) as harmonized under the EU Rental and Lending Directive 2006/115/EC should equally apply to both print books and e-books. This question has been answered in the affirmative by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the recent VOB case. The article argues that extending the PLR exception to e-book lending might not be the most appropriate solution. It would neither solve the problems that libraries face in relation to e-lending, nor would it ensure appropriate remuneration to authors. At this stage, other possible alternatives should be explored. K E Y W O R D S : public lending right, PLR, public lending exception, e-lending, e-books, copyright, ECJ, VOB I N T R O D U C T I O N E-book take-off in the European markets has been slow. Despite (or because of) that, in recent decades e-lending has gained momentum in a number of European public libraries. At the same time, the process has not been as smooth as one would have liked. Libraries are complaining about the unwillingness of publishers to provide e-books for loan, excessively high prices and unreasonable restrictions on e-book loans, while authors are arguing that they are not compensated at all for e-lending in public libraries. From a copyright law perspective, e-book lending has been treated very differently from print book lending. As a result of the so called ‘public lending right’ (PLR) (sometimes referred to as the ‘public lending exception’), libraries can buy and simply lend print books without any further authorization. Until recently, it had been assumed this exception did not apply to e-books. As a result, libraries wishing to lend * PhD, LL.M. (Munich), lecturer at Newcastle Law School (Australia); associated researcher at the Law Institute of Lithuania. E-mail: rita.matulionyte@newcastle.edu.au 1 For example, in 2014, e-books comprised 5% of the total market in Germany, 1.1% in France, and 3-5% in Spain, compared with 11.5% in the UK and 13% in the US. See Rüdiger Wischenbart Content and Consulting, ‘Global eBook: A Report on Market Trends and Developments’ (2014) 21 accessed 15 December 2016. 2 Civic Agenda EU, ‘A Review of Public Library E-Lending Models’ (December 2014) 37 accessed 15 December 2016 (Civic Agenda EU). 3 See the discussion below for an explanation of the two different terms. VC The Author (2017). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com. 259 International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 2017, 25, 259–282 doi: 10.1093/ijlit/eax016 Advance Access Publication Date: 11 October 2017 Article Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijlit/article-abstract/25/4/259/4457936 by U. of Florida Health Science Center Library user on 03 January 2018 e-books were required to seek permission from right holders, pay additional fees and comply with conditions imposed by right holders via licensing agreements. In the VOB case, the Court of Justice of European Union (CJEU) established that the PLR applies to at least certain e-lending models. It applied the technological neutrality approach suggested in the opinion of Advocate General (AG) Szpunar and concluded that the PLR exception applies in situations where e-books are lent by public libraries to one user at a time (single-user model) and where an e-book becomes inaccessible after a loan period expires. The goal of this article is to examine whether the technologically neutral application of the PLR to e-lending, as suggested in the VOB case, is the most suitable solution to the issues pressing the public e-lending sector. When examining this question, firstly, I will overview the situation of e-lending in Europe and problems related to it. Secondly, I will examine the concept of technological neutrality as it is applied in court practice and develop a test that would help to apply the technological neutrality principle to new legal scenarios. I will then analyse whether this principle suggests that PLR should be extended to e-lending. After concluding that the technological neutrality principle does not require the extension of the PLR to e-lending, I will open the discussion on the alternative options available for e-lending sector. E B O O K S , E L E N D I N G A N D P L R E-lending With the growth of e-book markets around the world, e-book lending in public libraries (or e-lending) has been emerging and expanding in a number of countries. Recent studies demonstrate that e-lending practices vary from country to country. E-lending models in the EU differ as to the source of the e-books (ie whether libraries run their own platforms or only access a platform that is run by an intermediary), how many e-titles they offer (from 109 in Estonia to 160,000 in Germany), what model they use to lend the books (single-user, pay-per-loan, or a combination of different models), any other restrictions they apply, their usage numbers, etc. The models are evolving rapidly and new ones are emerging. 4 Interestingly, the question of extending the PLR to e-lending has also been raised in several policy documents prepared by the European Commission. For example, see ‘Public Consultation on the Review of EU Copyright Rules’ (2013) 21 accessed 15 December 2016. However, it has not been mentioned in the most recent policy documents. For example, see Commission, ‘Promoting a Fair, Efficient and Competitive European Copyright-based Economy in the Digital Single Market’ (Communication) COM (2016) 592. 5 Case C-174/15 Vereniging Openbare Bibliotheken (VOB) v Stichting Leenrecht (ECJ, 10 November 2016). 6 In 2012, e-books constituted 21% of trade in the US and 25% of trade in the UK. See Rüdiger Wischenbart Content and Consulting (n 1) 21. 7 For example, in 2012/2013, the number of e-books in public libraries in England was 803,085. This was an increase of 80.6% on the previous year. See William Siehart, ‘Independent Library Report for England’ (18 December 2014) 19 accessed 15 December 2016; for overview of the situation in other countries see Civic Agenda EU (n 2). 8 See Civic Agenda EU (n 2). 9 For a more comprehensive description of e-lending, see Severine Dusollier, ‘A Manifesto for an E-Lending Limitation in Copyright’ (2014) 5 Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce 5, 4–6 (Dusollier). 260 Lending e-books in libraries Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijlit/article-abstract/25/4/259/4457936 by U. of Florida Health Science Center Library user on 03 January 2018 Stakeholders, especially public libraries, currently associate e-lending with a number of problems. Firstly, libraries are often unable to access many e-books. Some publishers are refusing to supply e-books to libraries, at any price. Other publishers are delaying the release of new titles to libraries so that not all publicly available e-book titles can be borrowed from libraries. Some e-book providers dictate what is included in a subscription package, thus limiting the capacity of libraries to develop their collections. Secondly, libraries indicate a number of procurement problems, the main issue being fair pricing. Libraries are often charged much higher prices for e-book titles when compared with retail prices. Thirdly, licensing agreements between libraries and publishers or distributors normally contain restrictions on e-lending. They often introduce so called ‘frictions’ that mimic print book lending. For instance, agreements often prescribe a ‘single-user’ model where, if one reader lends a book, other readers can access it only when the loan period expires. This model leads to artificial waiting lists for library patrons. Frictions were also introduced to address the issue that e-books do not naturally ‘wear’ or go missing. Some supply models dictate that an e-book license expires after a defined number of lending circulations or a period of availability (the so called ‘wear and tear’ provision). After such a term has expired, the library has to relicense the work. In addition, publishers or distributors often dictate for how long and in what format e-books can be borrowed, as well as any technical protection measures that may apply. At the same time, right holders are concerned about the potential of e-lending by libraries to undermine the value of their work, their income and their rights. Many publishers are still grappling with e-book business models and licensing practices associated with the supply of e-books to libraries. Publishers and distributors are afraid that e-lending services by public libraries will directly compete with still emerging e-book markets and decrease revenue from e-book sales. Arguably, the abovementioned frictions have been introduced via publisher–library agreements in order to protect e-book markets and maintain the balance in the relationship between different players. If libraries were able to utilize all opportunities provided by new e-book technologies, such as the easy and free copying and distribution of e-books, it would arguably damage e-book markets that are still emerging in many countries. Meanwhile, authors are complaining that they do not receive any payment for e-lending at all and blame publishers for not sharing revenue they receive from 10 For example, see International Federation of Library Associations, ‘The Thinkpiece: Libraries, eLending, and the Future of Public Access to Digital Content’ (2012) 20 accessed 15 December 2

中文翻译：

---

在图书馆借阅电子书：解决方案是否采用技术上中立的方法？

本文探讨了根据欧盟租赁和出借指令2006/115 / EC统一的公共出借权（PLR）是否应同样适用于印刷书籍和电子书的问题。在最近的VOB案中，欧洲联盟法院（CJEU）对这一问题的回答是肯定的。文章认为，将PLR例外扩展到电子书借阅可能不是最合适的解决方案。它既不能解决图书馆在电子借阅方面面临的问题，也不能确保向作者收取适当的报酬。在此阶段，应探索其他可能的替代方法。关键词：公共借阅权，PLR，公共借阅例外，电子借阅，电子书，版权，ECJ，VOB简介欧洲市场上电子书的发展缓慢。尽管有（或因为如此），近几十年来，电子借阅在许多欧洲公共图书馆中得到了发展。同时，这一过程并不像人们希望的那样顺利。图书馆抱怨出版商不愿提供借书电子书，过高的价格以及对借书电子书的不合理限制，而作者却争辩说，公共图书馆的借书根本无法得到补偿。从版权法的角度来看，电子书借贷与印刷书借贷的区别很大。由于所谓的“公共借阅权”（PLR）（有时称为“公共借阅例外”），图书馆可以购买和简单借阅印刷书籍，而无需任何进一步的授权。直到最近，人们一直认为该例外情况不适用于电子书。因此，希望借阅的图书馆*博士学位，法学硕士。（慕尼黑），纽卡斯尔法学院讲师（澳大利亚）；立陶宛法律研究所副研究员。电子邮件：rita.matulionyte@newcastle.edu.au 1例如，2014年，电子书占德国总市场的5％，法国为1.1％，西班牙为3-5％，而11.5％在英国和美国占13％。参见RüdigerWischenbart内容和咨询，“全球电子书：市场趋势和发展报告”（2014年）21于2016年12月15日访问。2欧盟公民议程，“公共图书馆电子借阅模式回顾”（2014年12月）37于2016年12月15日访问（欧盟公民议程）。3请参见下面的讨论，以对两个不同的术语进行解释。VC作者（2017）。牛津大学出版社出版。版权所有。有关权限，请发送电子邮件至：journals.permissions@oup.com。259国际法律和信息技术杂志，2017，25，259-282 doi：10.1093 / ijlit / eax016提前获取出版日期：2017年10月11日文章从https://academic.oup.com/ijlit/article-abstract/下载佛罗里达大学健康科学中心图书馆用户于25/4/259/4457936于2018年1月3日要求电子书寻求权利人的许可，支付额外费用并遵守权利人通过许可协议施加的条件。在VOB的情况下，欧盟法院（CJEU）规定，PLR至少适用于某些电子贷款模式。它采用了总督（AG）Szpunar意见中建议的技术中立方法，并得出结论认为，PLR例外适用于公共图书馆一次向一个用户借出电子书（单用户模式）并且借阅期限到期后，将无法访问电子书。本文的目的是检验VOB案例中建议的PLR在电子贷款方面的技术中立应用是否是解决紧迫公共电子贷款领域的问题的最合适解决方案。在研究这个问题时，首先，我将概述欧洲电子借贷的状况以及与此有关的问题。其次，我将研究技术中立性概念在法院实践中的应用，并开发一种测试，以帮助将技术中立性原理应用于新的法律场景。然后，我将分析该原则是否建议将PLR扩展到电子贷款。在断定技术中立性原则不需要将PLR扩展到电子贷款之后，我将开始讨论可用于电子贷款部门的替代方案。电子书，电子书借阅和电子借书随着全球电子书市场的增长，公共图书馆中的电子书借书（或电子借书）已在许多国家中兴起和扩展。最近的研究表明，电子贷款的做法因国家而异。欧盟的电子借阅模式在电子书的来源（即图书馆运行自己的平台还是仅访问由中介机构运行的平台），提供多少种电子书名（爱沙尼亚的109种）方面有所不同到德国的16万），他们使用什么模型借书（单用户，按次付款或不同模型的组合），它们适用的任何其他限制，使用数量等。这些模型正在迅速发展并且新的出现了。4有趣的是，欧洲委员会准备的几份政策文件中也提出了将PLR扩展到电子贷款的问题。例如，请参阅“欧盟版权规则审查的公众咨询”（2013）21 他们提供多少种电子书名（从爱沙尼亚的109种到德国的160,000种），他们使用何种书借模式（单用户，按次付费或不同模型的组合），还适用其他任何限制，它们的使用数量等。模型正在迅速发展，并且出现了新模型。4有趣的是，欧洲委员会准备的几份政策文件中也提出了将PLR扩展到电子贷款的问题。例如，请参阅“欧盟版权规则审查的公众咨询”（2013）21 他们提供多少种电子书名（从爱沙尼亚的109种到德国的160,000种），他们使用何种书借模式（单用户，按次付费或不同模型的组合），还适用其他任何限制，它们的使用数量等。模型正在迅速发展，并且出现了新模型。4有趣的是，欧洲委员会准备的几份政策文件中也提出了将PLR扩展到电子贷款的问题。例如，请参阅“欧盟版权规则审查的公众咨询”（2013）21 欧盟委员会准备的几份政策文件中也提出了将PLR扩展到电子贷款的问题。例如，请参阅“欧盟版权规则审查的公众咨询”（2013）21 欧盟委员会准备的几份政策文件中也提出了将PLR扩展到电子贷款的问题。例如，请参阅“欧盟版权规则审查的公众咨询”（2013）21于2016年12月15日访问。但是，最新的政策文件中未提及。例如，请参见委员会，“在数字单一市场中促进公平，高效和竞争性的欧洲基于版权的经济”（通信），COM（2016）592。5 C-174 / 15案例，公开书目（VOB）v Stichting Leenrecht （欧洲法院，2016年11月10日）。6 2012年，电子书占美国贸易的21％，占英国贸易的25％。请参阅RüdigerWischenbart内容和咨询（n 1）21。7例如，在2012/2013年，英格兰公共图书馆的电子书数量为803,085。比上一年增长了80.6％。参见William Siehart，“英格兰独立图书馆报告”（2014年12月18日）192016年12月15日访问; 有关其他国家/地区局势的概述，请参见欧盟公民议程（n 2）。8参见欧盟公民议程（n 2）。9有关电子出借的更全面说明，请参见Severine Dusollier，“版权中的电子出借限制宣言”（2014年）5知识产权，信息技术和电子商务杂志5，4–6（Dusollier）。260图书馆借阅电子书美国佛罗里达州健康科学中心的用户从https://academic.oup.com/ijlit/article-abstract/25/4/259/4457936下载2018年1月3日利益相关者，特别是公众图书馆，目前将电子借贷与许多问题联系在一起。首先，图书馆经常无法访问许多电子书。一些出版商拒绝以任何价格向图书馆提供电子书。其他出版商正在推迟向图书馆发行新书名，以便并非可以从图书馆借用所有公开可用的电子书书名。一些电子书提供商规定了订阅包中包含的内容，从而限制了图书馆开发其藏书的能力。其次，图书馆指出了许多采购问题，主要问题是公平定价。与零售价格相比，图书馆经常为电子书标题收取更高的价格。第三，图书馆与出版商或发行商之间的许可协议通常包含对电子出借的限制。他们经常引入模仿印刷书籍借贷的所谓“摩擦”。例如，协议通常规定了“单用户”模式，如果一个读者借出一本书，则其他读者只有在借阅期到期时才能访问该书。这种模式导致了图书馆顾客的人工等待名单。还引入了摩擦来解决电子书不会自然地“磨损”或丢失的问题。一些供应模型规定，电子书许可证在定义的借阅循环次数或可用期限（所谓的“损耗”规定）后到期。这样的期限到期后，图书馆必须重新许可该作品。此外，出版商或发行商通常会规定可以借阅电子书的时间和格式，以及可能适用的任何技术保护措施。同时，权利持有人担心图书馆进行电子借阅会破坏其工作价值，收入和权利。许多出版商仍在努力解决与向图书馆提供电子书相关的电子书业务模型和许可做法。出版商和发行商担心，公共图书馆的电子借阅服务将直接与仍在兴起的电子书市场竞争，从而减少电子书销售的收入。可以说，上述摩擦是通过出版商－图书馆协议引入的，目的是保护电子书市场并保持不同参与者之间关系的平衡。如果图书馆能够利用新的电子书技术提供的所有机会，例如电子书的轻松和免费复制和发行，那无疑会损害许多国家仍在兴起的电子书市场。同时， 2月15日访问