|
A question:
IF ebooks are different and we (the readers) need to start recognizing the differences resulting from the fact that the mere lending of a file inherently violates copyright (by the creation of a new copy); then why is it OK for the same laws—which were created at a time when it would have been impossible to violate copyright (either intentionally or accidentally) by the loaning of a legal physical book—to be applied as if these clearly new and different beasties are same?
It seems to me that copyright violation being inherent in the creation of a new ebook file is a bit of a red herring in the "lending is a lost sale" argument. If I concede that the casual lending of an ebook could be seen as a lost sale (which I don't), then the casual lending of a physical book 10/30/400 years ago was a lost sale as well. But it's only an issue now because "copyright violation!"? I don't buy it. An author has never been payed based on the number of copies of their books that are in existence.
|