> the characterization of libraries as something that actually hurts publishers and writers, as implied by writing that CDL would hurt publishers "no more" than

> the characterization of libraries as something that actually hurts publishers and writers, as implied by writing that CDL would hurt publishers "no more" than ordinary lending, is something I feel compelled to oppose. I don't think you understood me correctly. I'm not saying that I personally believe libraries hurt publishers and writers. I'm saying, "Here's how to rebut publisher's concerns about CDL." Publishers have already made their peace with libraries with regard to the lending of physical books. The first-sale doctrine protects what libraries do. Publishers already know there's nothing they can do about that, even if some of them might think it hurts sales. And so the argument for CDL is that it mirrors physical lending and thus puts them in no worse position than if the digital books were physical books. Again, to reiterate, I'm not saying that libraries are bad for publishers or authors. I'm saying that if you're trying to address publisher's concerns about CDL, then pointing out that it's no worse than physical lending is an effective way to argue your case.