The issue is that the price of buying a physical book to lend in circulation and the price of an ebook lending license are different - the latter is much higher - because an ebook can be lent many more times to many more people than one physical book and depresses sales more
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @downix and
Especially since, no matter what restrictions you slap on ebook lending, it's much easier for an ordinary person with a computer to crack your DRM and rip the file than it is to physically scan a physical book, so the piracy risk is higher
1 reply 1 retweet 10 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @downix and
It may seem like an arbitrary distinction to you but arguing that restrictive terms on ebook lending means you don't want libraries to exist at all because ebooks and physical books are "the same thing" is disingenuous as hell
2 replies 3 retweets 17 likes -
I am pointing out the logical conclusion within a legal dispute for the argument made. The intent may not be that, but it can be argued successfully that would be the result of the argument that was made. (Although this is more due to how poor the copyright laws are written)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
You can justify it however you want but you know that arguing that the Authors Guild wants all physical libraries shut down is bullshit Even if they wanted all ebook lending shut down (which they don't) that wouldn't be the same as a wanting all physical lending shut down
2 replies 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @downix and
It's really obnoxious that copyleft activists play this "So what you're saying..." card, trying to own people with their own logic
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @downix and
No, skeptics about expansive "fair use" online do not "logically" want fair use as it's existed for decades in the meatspace world shut down The whole reason we're in this situation is that digital sharing works fundamentally differently than physical sharing
1 reply 1 retweet 11 likes -
Quite true. My concern is that the arguments being made fundamentally seem driven by bad assumptions. I can see how bad assumptions can result in very bad outcomes in such disputes, so I am putting forth the worst case scenario to hopefully get people to pay attention.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
In other words, you're lying
1 reply 1 retweet 6 likes -
Not at all. I am presenting a logical conclusion. Just because it is not something you like does not negate the conclusion reached.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
When you say people are advocating something they're not actually advocating, you are lying
-
-
Only if it cannot be reached as a conclusion of what they are advocating for. But, it can. So, even if inadvertent, the conclusion remains. Intent means little, after all.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.