ELI5 #1 for people saying it's a clear-cut case in favor of the publishers on account of current law interpretation: It's like Uber and Airbnb (only much more beneficial for society at large). They said, you know what, time have changed, the law is wrong, we should be allowed to do this now, and the only way for that is to do our thing and explain it to the courts so they can understand.
ELI5 #2 for people saying it's a clear-cut case in favor of the publishers saying "well but a 1:1 physical:digital loan program really would cut into copyright holders' profits on physical and/or eBooks": That is not necessarily the case and quite possibly the opposite. Remember the studies of music sharing in the 90s and early 2000s?
1 comment
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 15.0 ms ] threadELI5 #1 for people saying it's a clear-cut case in favor of the publishers on account of current law interpretation: It's like Uber and Airbnb (only much more beneficial for society at large). They said, you know what, time have changed, the law is wrong, we should be allowed to do this now, and the only way for that is to do our thing and explain it to the courts so they can understand.
ELI5 #2 for people saying it's a clear-cut case in favor of the publishers saying "well but a 1:1 physical:digital loan program really would cut into copyright holders' profits on physical and/or eBooks": That is not necessarily the case and quite possibly the opposite. Remember the studies of music sharing in the 90s and early 2000s?