I'm more shocked that so many professed book-lovers are anti-author. Yes, I'm sure if you're a Cory Doctorow acolyte you hate copyright, but pretty much everyone else would find the majority of the authors they enjoy are lined up against the IA on this issue.

The right of first sale has nothing to do with the right not to print more copies.

The book being OOP may be exactly what the author or publisher wants. The right of copyright includes the right NOT to have your work sold.

Actually, you can't, except in very limited circumstances (teaching, accessibility, etc.). Photocopying a paper book and setting up a library distributing those photocopies would be HIGHLY illegal.

It wasn't a temporary program. The UNLIMITED LENDING was a temporary program, but the IA still asserted the right to make a digital ebook from a physical copy and lend it "one at a time", which it turns out they didn't have the right to do.

The IA will be fine.

Right call. Buying a physical book doesn't automatically give you an ebook lending license, let alone an infinite number of them.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

Traditionally, libraries would buy copies of physical books and lend them out. As these books are physical, only one at a time could be lent. Libraries were not allowed to make photocopies of books and lend out multiple at a time.

When ebooks came along, making digital "photocopies" became potentially much easier. Thus, many ebooks came with DRM attached to prevent copying. As digital rights are different from the rights to physical goods, authors and publishers would generally provide a license for lending of ebooks in exchange for a fee. Libraries could still buy ebooks and lend them out, but the number of times they could lend them was restricted based on how much they paid for those rights.

The Internet Archive came along, bought a bunch of books, made ebook versions of them, and then lent them out -- usually one at a time, but for a while they lent out unlimited copies. Their argument is that buying a physical book once should allow them to lend it in ebook form one at a time, just like it allows them to lend it in physical book form one at a time, without paying any licensing fee for those electronic rights.

The Internet Archive should survive because it does a lot of good and useful stuff. It will survive even if it loses this case. At issue is whether or not this particular lending library practice should survive. Those who argue that it should generally don't think ebooks should have any copying restrictions anyway and think everyone should be able to get any book for free without paying the authors or publishers anything, because they see publishers as already too rich and too powerful and evil, and they believe authors will benefit more from the "increased exposure" of freely pirated ebooks and more people will buy their books as a result. They are generally also the same people who think copyrights are too long anyway and think that long copyrights only serve to benefit the publishers and not the authors.

People who support individual rights, authors, and publishers are generally against it, because they believe digital lending rights are different from physical lending rights and this is an important revenue stream for both authors and the publishing industry. Creating a new right that allows ebook copying not only denies individuals a right over the control of their work, but hurts them financially. They believe libraries are doing just fine with the current lending scheme and that there's no need to create a new giant free ebook library.

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".

Yes. Butler's creativity as a writer is overrated.

Talk about a late delivery.

Melissa Benoist did it better!

I mean, I think Saul Kripke is the most important philosopher of the 20th Century, but you're right that Neitzsche is more well-known. As for a summary, I would say he is more of a polemicist than a philosopher, but there are some beneficial bits of wisdom that can be gleaned from his works with repeated reading.

> it wont replace classical computers, nor provide a universal speedup or extreme amounts of storage.

That's a very bold and definitive statement about future technology. In truth no one can really know what quantum computing might enable in the future.

Also, for someone making definitive statements,

> due to wavefunction collapse

is an odd choice of phrase given that wavefunction collapse is ill-defined and not even proven to actually exist.

Yes, I came here to post this. I sell magic cards online and pretty much everything involved in the shipping process that uses paper has gone up in price -- the cardboard shipping shields, the envelopes, the address labels, etc. And of course postage. I suspect a 300 page book has gone up at least $3 due to paper prices alone.

If you read the article, the answer is iron (and all the other elements) did indeed oxidize, but with water, not with free oxygen in the atmosphere. At least, that's what the experiment says could have happened. The reason for this is chlorates and bromates in the water that enable this reaction, at least in the case of manganese. Whether or not this applies to iron I don't know. What is important is that manganese doesn't turn into manganese oxide when there is oxygen in the air if you also have too much CO2, so unless your model has the Martian atmosphere "just right" to make manganese oxide, you need an alternative process.

It’s not Tesla so this story will be buried in a few hours.

I don't think that's an "often" interpretation, but it is a potential conclusion to draw from it. Yes, you're correct that "someone has to be early, and maybe we just happen to be one" is entirely possible. But that is then something extra you have to include and defend with your theory of interstellar civilization spread.

To put it another way, the theory that most experts would accept right now suggests we should be in the middle of the distribution. If evidence shows we AREN'T, then either the theory is wrong, or you have to defend that "Yep, it's a good theory; we're just unusual."

A more general answer to your question is because it's a principal of astrophysical reasoning ever since the Copernican Revolution. Tradition (and religion) taught that the Earth had a privileged position in the universe. Centuries of subsequent scientific investigation showed that not to be the case for virtually every attribute measured, and so that has become a strong principle that guides scientific investigation in general. It's so rarely going to be true that claiming it is true for a particular theory is very suspicious (and more likely means there's something wrong with your theory).

> What gate length of apple m1 silicon

It's 5nm process, but that equates to a gate length of 16nm to 20nm I believe.

It's a marketing thing. Process size used to be approximately the same as gate length, but that hasn't been true since 22nm (with a gate length around 25nm). 2nm has a gate length of around 12nm. 1nm process gate length is unknown but unlikely to be much smaller than 10nm.