5 ms·

> If that were the case then each copy would need to sell for thousands of dollars for content creators to afford food. That is precisely the agreement that ex

> If that were the case then each copy would need to sell for thousands of dollars for content creators to afford food. That is precisely the agreement that existing libraries have with publishers now. The digital copy that they buy to lend out comes with restrictions on how many copies can be lent at a time, and also costs a lot more than just buying one copy of the book.

forrestthewoods 2y ago
That's certainly not the license that Internet Archive paid for! If we want media licenses to cost thousands of dollars so they can be loaned out digitally fine. That's something that can be fairly negotiated. What I oppose is a regular off the shelf purchase being used for unlimited, instantaneous digital rentals. That's disastrously terrible idea.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  Then find a lawsuit that specifically goes against the instantaneous part, because a ruling that says "no lending at all" is just awful.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - forrestthewoods 2y ago
    The word “lending” doesn’t even make sense with digital goods. Nothing tangible is being lent or borrowed. Another perfect copy is being allowed to be made. Ironically it might not even be the same copy! Someone “borrowing” a digital good might download a copy of a new version or in a different language.
    - rockskon 2y ago
      The idea is to impose the restrictions of physical goods onto the digital one. Your idea is to eliminate the very concept of a library where ebooks are concerned. You may want to rethink your argument.
      - forrestthewoods 2y ago
        > The idea is to impose the restrictions of physical goods onto the digital one. You know how some people think rent control is a good idea but then every economist explain how it’s actually bad? That’s how I feel about “impose the restrictions of physical goods onto digital”. It’s a terrible idea that has terrible ramification if you follow things to their logical conclusion. > Your idea is to eliminate the very concept of a library where ebooks are concerned. Yeah that’s totally fine. The metaphor of an ebook library is bad and illogical. If you wanted to write digital-first copyright laws you wouldn’t invent a faux library. There’s better solutions out there.
        mezzie2 2y ago
        > Yeah that’s totally fine. The metaphor of an ebook library is bad and illogical. E-book lending is pretty much the only accessible option for people with sensory impairments. I think they're a larger portion of the population than writers, so why do writers' monetary interests overwrite accessibility concerns? Plenty of books aren't available in large print or audio versions; e-books are a great way for us to read those books. Big text is best text.
        forrestthewoods 2y ago
        People with sensory impairments can buy e-books. Why would their accessibility concerns grant them free access to the fruits of someone else's labor? If you really, really want just pirate it. It's economically equivalent.
        mezzie2 2y ago
        So people with perfect vision and hearing should be able to check out materials from a library and people with impairments shouldn't? That's also against the law. So you're against the existence of libraries at all? Since they provide free access to the fruits of someone else's labor? That is at least an honest position. I won't pretend to have any respect for it, but at least it's consistent.

forrestthewoods 2y ago

That's certainly not the license that Internet Archive paid for! If we want media licenses to cost thousands of dollars so they can be loaned out digitally fine. That's something that can be fairly negotiated. What I oppose is a regular off the shelf purchase being used for unlimited, instantaneous digital rentals. That's disastrously terrible idea.

Dylan16807 2y ago
Then find a lawsuit that specifically goes against the instantaneous part, because a ruling that says "no lending at all" is just awful.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- forrestthewoods 2y ago
  The word “lending” doesn’t even make sense with digital goods. Nothing tangible is being lent or borrowed. Another perfect copy is being allowed to be made. Ironically it might not even be the same copy! Someone “borrowing” a digital good might download a copy of a new version or in a different language.
  - rockskon 2y ago
    The idea is to impose the restrictions of physical goods onto the digital one. Your idea is to eliminate the very concept of a library where ebooks are concerned. You may want to rethink your argument.
    - forrestthewoods 2y ago
      > The idea is to impose the restrictions of physical goods onto the digital one. You know how some people think rent control is a good idea but then every economist explain how it’s actually bad? That’s how I feel about “impose the restrictions of physical goods onto digital”. It’s a terrible idea that has terrible ramification if you follow things to their logical conclusion. > Your idea is to eliminate the very concept of a library where ebooks are concerned. Yeah that’s totally fine. The metaphor of an ebook library is bad and illogical. If you wanted to write digital-first copyright laws you wouldn’t invent a faux library. There’s better solutions out there.
      - mezzie2 2y ago
        > Yeah that’s totally fine. The metaphor of an ebook library is bad and illogical. E-book lending is pretty much the only accessible option for people with sensory impairments. I think they're a larger portion of the population than writers, so why do writers' monetary interests overwrite accessibility concerns? Plenty of books aren't available in large print or audio versions; e-books are a great way for us to read those books. Big text is best text.
        forrestthewoods 2y ago
        People with sensory impairments can buy e-books. Why would their accessibility concerns grant them free access to the fruits of someone else's labor? If you really, really want just pirate it. It's economically equivalent.
        mezzie2 2y ago
        So people with perfect vision and hearing should be able to check out materials from a library and people with impairments shouldn't? That's also against the law. So you're against the existence of libraries at all? Since they provide free access to the fruits of someone else's labor? That is at least an honest position. I won't pretend to have any respect for it, but at least it's consistent.