I don’t understand the reasoning there though. Like, I can get on board with sayibg fair-use is silly, but lending a book that I own —either digitally or physically— should be protected.
The concept of "owning" a book digitally is already on shaky ground, since most large publishers only sell licenses for accessing ebooks. You're not actually purchasing a copy in perpetuity like a physical book. Naturally these licenses are entirely on the publishers' terms.
In practice this means publishers can revoke access licenses for all sorts of arbitrary reasons, alter the content of ebooks already purchased, or plenty of other shady practices, with little recourse available to the reader.
Plus it means they can force libraries to keep paying repeated, marked-up licensing fees for the privilege of lending out ebooks. Much better deal for the publishers than the physical library lending model!
I don't blame IA for trying to find a way to liberate library lending from that racket.
You can sell or lend the physical copy you own. You can’t make a copy and then loan that. Copyright is the right to control making copies.
You could sell or lend virtual copy if the platforms supported that. You are allowed to make a copy for backup purposes, and no one will ever know if you use that or even lend it. But if you make business of it, then they will notice and sue you.
