speakingtohe:
None of those points are valid, not even the seemingly legitimate "wear out" argument. As for the other points, they are just plain misleading.
Libraries are only authorized to lend out one copy of each purchase. They must then wait until the book is returned or the book expires. In that sense, it is no different from lending print books.
Even though the bits are being duplicated, an individual's right to access those bits is being restricted. So those bits are effectively useless. Now I supposed that you could argue that it is possible to crack DRM, but photocopiers can duplicate print books anyway. Again, it is no different from lending books.
So let's get back to that wear out bit. Strictly speaking, ebooks don't wear out. Yet the popularity of books does wear out. So if a library buys 20 copies of an ebook to satisfy demand, they will have 20 copies of that book sitting on their virtual bookshelf in 20 years. If the same library bought 20 copies of a print book to satisfy demand, they may have 10 copies sitting on the shelf in 20 years. But both the ebook and the print book may only have 1 copy out at any given time 20 years down the road. There is no difference in the publisher's or author's revenues. Even authors who would only sell 1 copy to a library are unlikely to see a difference, since books that aren't in demand aren't going to be replaced.
What I see are a bunch of weak arguments that are intended to create an absolute sense of ownership that is meant to control how people use the products that the purchase. Quite frankly, I find that dangerous. When one side is given absolute property rights while the other side has no property rights, the many will become impoverished -- or worse.
|