[mixologic]

> 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]

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]

Then find a lawsuit that specifically goes against the instantaneous part, because a ruling that says "no lending at all" is just awful.

[forrestthewoods]

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]

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]

> 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.

[Dylan16807]

> 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.

We're only talking about applying that to lending, which otherwise wouldn't exist, so I don't see the issue. And more importantly it's applying the rights you get with physical books. ...Come to think of it, what restrictions are being added that don't already exist in our current broken state of digital copyright?

[rockskon]

> 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.

Do you have a specific grievance with respect to imposing lending restrictions on ebooks to mimic their physical counterparts?

Your analogy alone is strained and doesn't serve this topic well.

> Yeah that’s totally fine.The metaphor of an ebook library is bad and illogical.

I contend that the information contained in the books and not the format they're stored in are what matters. People checkout books from libraries to read their contents, not to sniff the paper they're printed on.

> If you wanted to write digital-first copyright laws you wouldn’t invent a faux library. There’s better solutions out there.

Do tell of these better solutions that don't require waiting several decades for all the pre-Internet baby boomer octogenarian lawmakers and judges to die off from old age.

[mezzie2]

> 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.