4 ms·
It would be reasonable to allow for the exclusive sharing or transfer of an ebook. Why can't I resell the single-copy (and thus forfeit my own use) or lend it t
by jacobr1 4y ago
It would be reasonable to allow for the exclusive sharing or transfer of an ebook. Why can't I resell the single-copy (and thus forfeit my own use) or lend it to a friend when done (and again I would be unable to use it when it was lent until returned/timed-out)?
- CobrastanJorji 4y agoThere's a rich history of this not being "reasonable." That's why Netflix can't stream you a movie because they have a physical DVD of it in a vault. I 100% agree with you that it should be this way but it should not be surprising that it is not.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoEven that's not a solution. If Netflix could do that, every DVD you bought would come with a contract in terms of service with no distribution or Landing rights
- suddenclarity 4y agoThe issue is that digital scales on a whole different level. Imagine I could buy and transfer a 90 min movie. The next person does the same. 10 people across the world could easily watch my copy in 24 hours. That's 3 650 viewers in a year. Now imagine I bought 10 copies. Those 10 copies just replaced 36 500 customers. Apply the same concept to a 3 min song that you listen to once a week.
- jacobr1 4y agoSure, but I also could just copy it to millions of people. But in this context we are talking about artificially limiting usage. So we could do something like limit sharing to once a day, or month or whatever. No sharing or transfer seems too limited.
- yencabulator 4y agoSo, your argument is that busy libraries in big cities have always been "more illegal" than less-visited libraries where the books sit on the shelves more?
- suddenclarity 4y agoI doubt you can misunderstand my comment to that extent.