What's really sad is that this is a physical limitation of books that is easily overcome with digital copies. Instead of embracing this new freedom technology brings us, we -- or rather some publishers -- seek to hold new technology back and effectively make it mimic as much as possible the limitations of the previous technology. And this only because it makes business sense to them.
Imagine this:
"Good news, everyone! We've invented Star Trek-like replication technology. I can replicate and provide any amount of food or tools for everyone! It's the post-scarcity society we've always dreamt of!"
"Quick, we must now devise a way to make this encumbered so food and tools cannot really be replicated at will with zero cost, and instead make it resemble how we used to farm/grow food and build traditional tools, or else business as we know it may crumble. Also we need a way to identify and sue people who breach our business contracts!"
It's depressing. A bit like the future that The Murderbot Diaries depict.
You're equating what we have now (people wanting to make money off their intellectual property) with a fictional scenario where money is no longer needed.
We have to stick with the old way for now, otherwise it would only take one library buying one copy of anything, and it being available to any and everyone on an unlimited basis. That can't work.
I don't know that we have to stick with the old ways, but more importantly, it's depressing when technology is limited in this way. This isn't even morally arguable technology like genetic manipulation, this is simply a post-scarcity situation made, um, artificially scarce. It's never the right time for change; if some companies had their way a post-scarcity world would never arrive ("now is not the time! Think of the economy!"). A Star Trek world would never happen because copyright holders wouldn't let it happen.
It's depressing when people argue "but libraries can only lend as many physical copies as they have" as if this was a good thing about books instead of an accidental limitation.
Actually, that's the concept I was looking for: accidental limitations. It sucks when publishers and media companies seek to turn accidental limitations into mandated limitations, as if they were a law of nature, and when the technology could rid us of said limitations.
but this is _not_ just a distribution problem like you seem to be implying. Yes, digital solves distribution, so we are post-scarcity in that sense, but someone also needs to put in the intellectual labor to write a book in the first place. That has always been scarce. And if you don't incentivize it properly, people will have no reason to put in the effort to write books.
I assure you, writers will write books even if nobody paid them. This is not to say it's ok if they have to live under a bridge because they can't support themselves. But writers write, and for a lot of them money is not the primary motivation, just a welcome (and important) one.
Likewise, painters will paint even if nobody will buy their paintings.
Imagine this:
"Good news, everyone! We've invented Star Trek-like replication technology. I can replicate and provide any amount of food or tools for everyone! It's the post-scarcity society we've always dreamt of!"
"Quick, we must now devise a way to make this encumbered so food and tools cannot really be replicated at will with zero cost, and instead make it resemble how we used to farm/grow food and build traditional tools, or else business as we know it may crumble. Also we need a way to identify and sue people who breach our business contracts!"
It's depressing. A bit like the future that The Murderbot Diaries depict.