Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Because there is all the difference in the world between borrowing, buying, or giving away an existing copy of a book, and creating an additional copy of a book and distributing that additionalal copy without the permission of the copyright holder.
|
Well, the copyright holder would not permit you to make an additional copy because he/she would not want to loss any
potential sale. Don't forget that in a wonderful world of free market, everyone (according to Adam Smith) acts out of self-love. The copyright holder will be no difference. Actually the self-love motive especially applies so in this case since the copyright holder has a monopoly power - call me cynical.
But regarding lending of digital books with or without making a backup copy, if you look at the end result, the two practices are not as different as you think. In the end two persons enjoy the same book and the author does not get extra payment. The end result is exactly the same. But while one practice is regarded as copyright infringement, the other is not. Robert seems to grasp its irony and idiocracy. I think he trys to argue against equating copyright infringement with immorality.