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

Reply to comment by sirbruce in The Internet Archive is defending its digital library in court today by OutlandishnessOk2452

> 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.