Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
I'm afraid I don't understand the question, Moejoe. A library buys "x" copies of a book, if it's a paper book. If it's an eBook, they buy a licence to distribute "x" simultaneous copies of the book for a restricted period of time. Are you suggesting that a library should buy a licence to provide unlimited copies of an eBook? That would be enormously expensive - would you, as a taxpayer, be willing to pay the significantly increased taxes that such a move would entail?
|
You prove my point, it is redundant to classify a license to distribute a digital item in the same manner as you would treat a physically bought copy. One digital copy is all digital copies. If the material is available freely and without restriction all places but said distribution channel, then said distribution channel and the practices of digital restriction become redundant. This isn't even a what is right or what is wrong argument, just a 'what is' explanation. It takes only one digital file to become all digital files. All morality arguments and laws aside, and looking only toward the practical, if a library buys a license to distribute X digital copies and said product is available at all other places without restriction and no barriers, the restriction becomes meaningless and has the exact opposite effect on its target audience.
Restrictions don't work when the identical product is available with less hassle from other venues. Also, these systems exclude large portions of tax-payers who use free software as their primary operating systems. On every level they are impractical, wasteful of resources and benefit nobody but the IP holders.
Logically now, knowing what you know of the world and what you know of the internet, can you say that these systems are fated to do anything but fail in the future?