You can't defend public libraries and oppose file-sharing
torrentfreak.com
You can't defend public libraries and oppose file-sharing
1–10 of 89 posts
Re: You can't defend public libraries and oppose file-sharing
#2This isn't really a fair comparison. File-sharing has marginal costs close to zero, so wide distribution becomes essentially free. Public libraries must hold an inventory that can only be increased by paying for another copy of the book, movie, etc.
If public libraries had their own printing presses and loaned out copies they printed from some master edition this would be a fairer analogy, but in this case libraries would effectively be stealing from the publishers and authors, as file sharing sites are currently.
Re: You can't defend public libraries and oppose file-sharing
#3This isn't really a fair comparison. File-sharing has marginal costs close to zero, so wide distribution becomes essentially free. Public libraries must hold an inventory that can only be increased by paying for another copy of the book, movie, etc. If public libraries had their own printing presses and loaned out copies they printed from some master edition this would be a fairer analogy, but in this case libraries…
Even with ebooks that some libraries offer, which have the same costs close to zero as you say, there are often arbitrary limitations as to how many they'll lend out at a time.
Re: You can't defend public libraries and oppose file-sharing
#4What an absurd title and statement. Of course you can defend public libraries and oppose file sharing! It costs almost nothing to share digital files, while libraries have very real physical location costs and costs to maintain physical books (and maybe even to purchase digital books?). Not to mention the local community benefits a physical library offers.
Re: You can't defend public libraries and oppose file-sharing
#5This isn't really a fair comparison. File-sharing has marginal costs close to zero, so wide distribution becomes essentially free. Public libraries must hold an inventory that can only be increased by paying for another copy of the book, movie, etc. If public libraries had their own printing presses and loaned out copies they printed from some master edition this would be a fairer analogy, but in this case libraries…
The article main point is that Public libraries are more expensive that File-sharing, and that a zero-marginal cost hyper parallel public library would be indistinguishable to File-sharing.
The argument against file sharing then becomes the argument to keep tax paid public libraries sufficient inefficient that the copyright industry can create a living by supplying a better product.
Re: You can't defend public libraries and oppose file-sharing
#6This isn't really a fair comparison. File-sharing has marginal costs close to zero, so wide distribution becomes essentially free. Public libraries must hold an inventory that can only be increased by paying for another copy of the book, movie, etc. If public libraries had their own printing presses and loaned out copies they printed from some master edition this would be a fairer analogy, but in this case libraries…
Well to be fair the costs are irrelevant, you can claim the big issue is that Libraries actually getting their copies for free and in many countries actually charge (even if minute) fees for people to be able to borrow books making them more akin to Netflix than to TorrentFreak.
But the setup cost is really not the issue especially considering that you can setup a new digital library at little to no costs these days and as a very large portion of the books (I would say probably 99%>) that you would be able to get a hold on in a public library got digital copies than setting up the same exact collection isn't that hard.
Another argument to be made is actually the "value" of the information shared in libraries vs file sharing sites, while you can argue that even the poorest made film or the buggiest game has some educational value you would be hard pressed to claim that file sharing sites help propagate knowledge on a level that is even in the same order of magnitude as public libraries used too.
Yes some people might download a book, even a school book or some documentary (which today they are pretty worthless sadly) but majority of downloads are TV shows, Movies, Porn and Games which sorry claiming that they are akin to a public library is just blasphemous.
Re: You can't defend public libraries and oppose file-sharing
#7What an absurd title and statement. Of course you can defend public libraries and oppose file sharing! It costs almost nothing to share digital files, while libraries have very real physical location costs and costs to maintain physical books (and maybe even to purchase digital books?). Not to mention the local community benefits a physical library offers.
You didn't read the article. His point is that the purpose of a library is knowledge-sharing (and to your point, the expense of a library is for the greater good of knowledge-sharing). Since the purpose of file-sharing is knowledge-sharing, then they are similar in nature.
Re: You can't defend public libraries and oppose file-sharing
#8I agree, making information as widely available and accessible as possible can only be a net positive for a society in the long run. It would be interesting if business models shifted more towards crowdfunding.
Re: You can't defend public libraries and oppose file-sharing
#9Any useful comparison of libraries to file sharing ends at believing both are just places where Stuff Is and you can go and get it for free. It's to our collective benefit that libraries are much more than that.
Re: You can't defend public libraries and oppose file-sharing
#10What an absurd title and statement. Of course you can defend public libraries and oppose file sharing! It costs almost nothing to share digital files, while libraries have very real physical location costs and costs to maintain physical books (and maybe even to purchase digital books?). Not to mention the local community benefits a physical library offers.
Of course you can champion public libraries, and simultaneously oppose file sharing. Don't be ridiculous!
All it takes is either illogical, inconsistent thinking, or logically invalid thinking. There's no barrier to either of these, in theory or practice.