5 ms·

Both can be correct at the same time. Pirating a movie is copyright infringement, not stealing. Digital lending is currently legally gray-zone, but the pragmati

Both can be correct at the same time. Pirating a movie is copyright infringement, not stealing. Digital lending is currently legally gray-zone, but the pragmatic end-game for lenders is to make it so a physical book can be digitally lent so long as the physical book is unused during the lending period. This is because it can easily be shown that the publisher doesn't incur damages, since the same amount of books are on the market at any given time.

loeg 6y ago
Digital lending is widely established and supported by publishers generally. It's not especially new at this time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OverDrive,_Inc.#Libraries_and_schools https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OverDrive,_Inc.#Libraries_and_...
basch 6y ago
Now I'm waiting for a Netflix of lending, where I declare what movies I physically own, and can lend them out for credits to watch other movies. The middle man distributes a digital copy. You agree to legal responsible for any movies they distribute, that you claimed you physically owned but don't.
- rocqua 6y ago
  I believe that old movie-rental-stores needed more of a license than just owning the movies in order to rent them out for money.
  - iso947 6y ago
    In the UK, copyright law does not allow your Holme bought vhs/dvd/etc to be used for public viewing in places like oil rigs and schools, nor lending for money. I don’t recall about lending for free. Your local blockbuster had very different (In a legal sense) videos than your local Tesco - they cost more to buy. This doesn’t apply to books.
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  Aero. Didn't work out so well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aereo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aereo
MaxBarraclough 6y ago
> This is because it can easily be shown that the publisher doesn't incur damages, since the same amount of books are on the market at any given time. This strikes me as an approximation. If, in digital lending, the licence can change-hands instantly and across any physical distance, then it's not analogous to physical lending. Two people might be able to 'time share' a single licence, in a way that wouldn't be possible with a physical book.

loeg 6y ago

Digital lending is widely established and supported by publishers generally. It's not especially new at this time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OverDrive,_Inc.#Libraries_and_schools https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OverDrive,_Inc.#Libraries_and_...

basch 6y ago

Now I'm waiting for a Netflix of lending, where I declare what movies I physically own, and can lend them out for credits to watch other movies. The middle man distributes a digital copy. You agree to legal responsible for any movies they distribute, that you claimed you physically owned but don't.

rocqua 6y ago
I believe that old movie-rental-stores needed more of a license than just owning the movies in order to rent them out for money.
- iso947 6y ago
  In the UK, copyright law does not allow your Holme bought vhs/dvd/etc to be used for public viewing in places like oil rigs and schools, nor lending for money. I don’t recall about lending for free. Your local blockbuster had very different (In a legal sense) videos than your local Tesco - they cost more to buy. This doesn’t apply to books.
dredmorbius 6y ago
Aero. Didn't work out so well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aereo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aereo

MaxBarraclough 6y ago

> This is because it can easily be shown that the publisher doesn't incur damages, since the same amount of books are on the market at any given time. This strikes me as an approximation. If, in digital lending, the licence can change-hands instantly and across any physical distance, then it's not analogous to physical lending. Two people might be able to 'time share' a single licence, in a way that wouldn't be possible with a physical book.