This is a flawed comparison. Libraries exist because they can lend a book to only one person at a time. They don't try to provide full access to a book to an unlimited number of people around the world.
Libraries predate copyright by a couple thousand years. The rules of copyright were written to be compatible with the existence of libraries, not the other way around.
> Libraries exist because they can lend a book to only one person at a time.
this phrasing confused me for a minute, so to clarify: do you mean that if libraries could magically create infinite copies of a book, they wouldn't be allowed to exist, and are only tolerated because their presumed impact on copies-sold is limited?
We have had the ability to just reproduce books by printing them for literally centuries, and even more so since the commodification of printer technology. At even small scales, simply printing a book costs close to nothing. Yet libraries aren't just allowed to make copies of their most borrowed books and lend them away.
Libraries are allowed to only lend the number of books they have bought because it's a good compromise between public interest and copyright protection. It has nothing to do with scarcity.
Would it really make a difference if libraries could make copies of their most borrowed books? The book is still being shared by hundreds of people.
Libraries didn't get the right to make copies of books when copyright was invented, simply because libraries didn't need an exemption - it's cheaper to buy another copy than to maintain printing capability.
At even small scales, simply printing a book costs close to nothing.
I don't think that's true. As far as I'm aware, we're talking dollars, not cents. For mass-market paperbacks, it's less than that, but that's the opposite of small scale.
What I should've said is smaller scales. But yes you are right that it's still going to cost a few dollars , but if it was actually legal to just produce your own copies surely we would see tons of printing shop specializing in very small printing runs that minimize costs. Right now its very expensive to only print a few copies because no business model makes sense at that scale unless it's plain copying which is... illegal.
> if it was actually legal to just produce your own copies surely we would see tons of printing shop specializing in very small printing runs that minimize costs
what would they print? they don't have the original "master" file for the book, scans look bad and take time and OCR-ing a scan is error-prone
honestly i don't find this convincing... i think if small-scale printing made economic sense (and was something people want), you'd see bootleg books, despite the illegality. digital piracy is mostly illegal and that hardly stops people
