sirbruce t1_jd1omvc wrote on March 21, 2023 at 4:42 AM

I happen to think that EFF and the IA are in the wrong here. I as a creator have the right to decide how I want to license the digital rights to my book. If I decide to control that, or sell that right to my publisher to control, that's my right as a creator. The IA does not have the right to decide to ignore my digital rights and decide that just because they own a physical copy of my book that gives them the right to distribute digital copies, even if they only do so "one at a time".

littlethommy t1_jd21lml wrote on March 21, 2023 at 7:32 AM

How is lending a physical copy different from lending a digital copy?

Just because the industry decided to consider digital both digital and physical at the same time does not mean it makes sense. Just because they lobbied to limit the scope of digital copies to be way more narrow that what can be imposed on physical copies?

Some sell digital copies at the same price as a physical copy. But unlike the physical you only rent it, not own it, since it's only a perpetual license at best. In case of some DRM only until they decide to pull the plug on whatever online DRM service they were using. Then you are stuck with a bunch of one's and zeros you paid full price for, but can never legally access.

Just like they consider every pirated copy of a digital IP a theft of a full priced physical item while it is just a license violation. You can't have it both ways.

Think about it this way: a library is offering a service to make books available at a fee as a social service. They've been doing the same for decades with physical copies. Just because of the greed of publisher, this should not be allowed anymore for digital copies just because they decided so cause they could make more money?

sirbruce t1_jd3wwrn wrote on March 21, 2023 at 5:34 PM

> How is lending a physical copy different from lending a digital copy?

Because the "license" to lend a physical copy is included in a physical copy of the book. The "license" to lend a digital copy of a book is not included in a physical copy of the book and must be purchase separately according to the price I (or my publisher) set.

> Just because the industry decided to consider digital both digital and physical at the same time does not mean it makes sense.

Fundamental rights exist regardless of whether or not they "make sense" in some utilitarian analysis.

> Just like they consider every pirated copy of a digital IP a theft of a full priced physical item while it is just a license violation. You can't have it both ways.

I would agree you can't have it both ways so I consider it a license violation. Just because someone else makes an invalid argument on a different issue doesn't render my argument invalid on this issue.

littlethommy t1_jd4vgn7 wrote on March 21, 2023 at 9:11 PM

If the license to lend is included in a physical copy, not in a digital, how does that explain the same pricing for either in a lot of cases. How about I buy a physical copy and digitize it, and lend it out as such? Again, not allowed, but for different rules they designed.

Rights that were acquired trough spending a lot on legalized bribery (called lobbying). Just because something was made legal, does not mean it's right or just. You only care about it being so is because you have more to gain from it.

If you have no choice to play the game, but people with more money can actively stack the rules against others, you cannot claim "utilitarian"

The IP system as a whole is rotten, and I'm talking broadly here: music, patents, copyright, academic publishing,... IP protection is necessary, but as it is now, it's built on rules designed by companies to further their interests, not to serve the intended purpose. While it's riddled with protections for them and not for the others. While copyright and patent trolls, misuse the system to deny others theirs. And this is another one of those situations.

sirbruce t1_jd5pw3n wrote on March 22, 2023 at 12:40 AM

> If the license to lend is included in a physical copy, not in a digital, how does that explain the same pricing for either in a lot of cases.

The pricing is entirely up to the creator and the publisher. No explanation is necessary simply because the price does not match your perception of value.

> Rights that were acquired trough spending a lot on legalized bribery (called lobbying).

Rights in this case are what I consider natural rights.

> The IP system as a whole is rotten

While I agree there are problems with it, I do not agree that one problem is that people who buy physical copies of a work should be allowed to make one digital copy and lend it out ad infinitum to people, whether it be one at a time or not.

SomethingMatter t1_jd23jp1 wrote on March 21, 2023 at 8:01 AM

> just because they own a physical copy of my book that gives them the right to distribute digital copies, even if they only do so "one at a time".

They aren't distributing digital copies, they are loaning the copy that they have out. At the end of the loan, the person can no longer use the copy.

The big issue that you (and the publishers) are missing here is that you think that this is losing you income. There is no guarantee that the people that are loaning books will be buying a copy instead. The publishers haven't given any proof that they even lost a cent in revenue.

I buy a lot of digital books but I also use IA from time to time to loan out an obscure book that I have no interest in purchasing. I will never buy those books. This case is making me rethink my decision to buy book digitally. I am far less likely to buy any digital copies now and will try and visit my local library instead to read physical books or buy books from traditional book sellers and not places like Amazon.

I am doing this for 2 reasons:

The greed of the publishers (and some authors)
The fact that the contents of my digital copy, that I have purchased, can change any time in the future when the publisher decides to "update" the book.

sirbruce t1_jd3wlf3 wrote on March 21, 2023 at 5:32 PM

> They aren't distributing digital copies, they are loaning the copy that they have out.

Incorrect. They have no digital copy that they paid to "loan out". They have a physical copy, which they argue entitles them to loan out a digital copy.

> The big issue that you (and the publishers) are missing here is that you think that this is losing you income.

While that is a factor, I don't care if I don't lose income. I care that I'm losing my rights.

SomethingMatter t1_jd4140y wrote on March 21, 2023 at 6:01 PM

> Incorrect. They have no digital copy that they paid to “loan out”. They have a physical copy, which they argue entitles them to loan out a digital copy.

It’s already been established that this isn’t a problem. Libraries have created and loaned out braille books based on the OCR’d contents of their physical copies. That was deemed legal. This is exactly the same thing. They are creating a digital copy from the physical one (by scanning it in) and lending that out. It’s part of the fair use doctrine.

> While that is a factor, I don’t care if I don’t lose income. I care that I’m losing my rights.

What rights are you losing and what is the personal harm with the loss of those rights? There is a balance between personal rights and those of the public at large.

sirbruce t1_jd5pfwe wrote on March 22, 2023 at 12:37 AM

> It’s already been established that this isn’t a problem.

Whether or not it's a "problem" is irrelevant. If slavery wasn't a "problem", it would still be wrong. Creators have a right to control their work.

> Libraries have created and loaned out braille books based on the OCR’d contents of their physical copies. That was deemed legal. This is exactly the same thing.

There's a specific carve-out for such use in existing copyright law. There is no such carve-out for digital copies of physical books -- yet.

> What rights are you losing and what is the personal harm with the loss of those rights?

The right to license the digital reproduction of my work as I decide. The right not to be obligated to allow digital reproduction of my work simply because a physical copy was sold.

> There is a balance between personal rights and those of the public at large.

That is a popular argument under the social contract theory of rights, but much of modern law (particularly US law) is founded under the natural law theory of rights, to which I morally abscribe.