> 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.