3 ms·

Interestingly, if you consider any physical thing, in none of those scenarios does the manufacturer of the thing that was lent or not lent—with or without permi

• kbenson 6y ago
  That's because we confer and infer specific rights in different situations there. Selling something confers ownership, and lending something confers right to use, possibly limited by stipulations at that time. Re-lending something may or may not be allowed depending on what the original lending agreement was. In the metaphor, limiting in this way is like your friend saying "here, but don't let anyone else use it, I trust you, not them" when it's lent. For businesses doing some sort of lending it's generally more complex and a contract (like what you sign when renting a car), and may or may not cover usage by other people. I have no idea what limitations, if any, are put on the lending of digital goods by law or by the specific terms of IA, or the terms the other libraries in question offer.
  • jachee 6y ago
    > In the metaphor, limiting in this way is like your friend saying "here, but don't let anyone else use it, I trust you, not them" when it's lent. For businesses doing some sort of lending it's generally more complex and a contract (like what you sign when renting a car), and may or may not cover usage by other people. Sure, but at no point does the producer of a physical object that is being lent get a say-so in the agreement between my friend and me, or the contract between a lending business and me. In the car rental metaphor, it'd be like Ford suing Hertz for lending me a Focus that Ford already sold to Hertz.