Quote:
Originally Posted by itisbomb
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.
|
Well, it depends on what happens next.
If the one that got the copy keeps it for further readings, yes, it's an infringement. If both persons read the same book again it's an infringement. Because both situations involve the loss of a potential customer.
But if you give the eReader (with the books) to a third party, you act like lending him/her a paper book. No infringement.
Think of a metro ticket (monthly abo, transmissible). Only a person may use the public transportation at a given time.