Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

You can't defend public libraries and oppose file-sharing

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 89 posts

Re: You can't defend public libraries and oppose file-sharing

#11

Post by Lawtonfogle »

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #2

This 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…

More modern libraries also offer ebooks, so the comparison becomes closer as libraries modernize.

Re: You can't defend public libraries and oppose file-sharing

#12

Post by mikeash »

The article assumes that if you defend public libraries, you must defend them for the same reason the author defends them, and that particular reason happens to fit well with file sharing.

But there are other reasons to defend public libraries than simply the fact that they disseminate knowledge and this is worth carving out an exception in copyright. I think most people would defend public libraries on the basis of the doctrine of first sale: after an author sells a copy of a work, they can't control how you use it. As long as you're not making unauthorized copies of it, you can lend it out or do whatever else you like with it.

Re: You can't defend public libraries and oppose file-sharing

#13

Post by nwatson »

jbob2000 wrote: post #7
superdude wrote: post #4

What 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.

A "real-world" library's goal of knowledge-sharing is balanced with the need of the content-provider to make some money to support distribution and authoring of books. The public pays taxes to fund libraries so that people who can't afford to buy (or choose to not buy) particular books can still access them. There's a natural brake on distribution in that each copy can be checked out to at most one library patron at a time.

The most direct analogy carried over to the electronic space is e-book lending systems with built-in DRM. These systems usually keep the N-number-of-copies-available-for-loan restriction in place. Unlimited file-sharing does not at all resemble the balance between the-good-of-public-knowledge vs the-right-and-need-for-publishers-and-authors-to-make-money that a physical library model provides.

Re: You can't defend public libraries and oppose file-sharing

#14

Post by moviuro »

mikeash wrote: post #12

The article assumes that if you defend public libraries, you must defend them for the same reason the author defends them, and that particular reason happens to fit well with file sharing. But there are other reasons to defend public libraries than simply the fact that they disseminate knowledge and this is worth carving out an exception in copyright. I think most people would defend public libraries on the basis of…

How is reading a book different of watching a movie? When I'm done, I can return the book/delete the movie.

The only difference is outlined in the article: the movie can be watched simultaneously by different people who got it, whilst I'm the only one with the book in my hands.

Re: You can't defend public libraries and oppose file-sharing

#15

Post by ajuc »

dogma1138 wrote: post #6
jeffreyrogers wrote: post #2

This 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…

> TV shows, Movies, Porn and Games which sorry claiming that they are akin to a public library is just blasphemous

How is it blasphemous to claim a book, a movie, and a game are just different forms of art, and should be treated the same - as art?

I can understand some people have objections to porn, but then, Safo books are in libraries.

Re: You can't defend public libraries and oppose file-sharing

#16

Post by belorn »

dogma1138 wrote: post #6
jeffreyrogers wrote: post #2

This 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…

Movies, TV shows, games and music is all part of our common culture. The question is then if children who partakes in culture do better than those who are deprived, and what impact it has on their life.

One thing I am sure of is that there is no single artist in the world that isn't also a consumer of art. You don't become a great musician if you don't have access and listen to other peoples music, and you don't become a great movie director without watching other peoples movies. Same should be true for games, painting, and writing. If we removed all non-educational book from public libraries we should see a direct decrease in the number of writers that exist.

Re: You can't defend public libraries and oppose file-sharing

#17

Post by librvf »

Yes, it is different. It differs in efficiency.

Not an irrelevant difference. A public library is funded and maintained by the same community that uses it. The manual processes required to consume the material are a natural check in the process and the result is a mild shift in equilibrium. Communities benefit and libraries are legitimate customers, so publishers are at least still getting paid.

File sharing's equilibrium is nowhere near as balanced as the library. And equilibrium matters. It's the difference between a healthy and stable ecosystem and a rodent plague (https://youtu.be/zWVw-j8eYSk).

Re: You can't defend public libraries and oppose file-sharing

#18

Post by dingaling »

The author states:

"You would frequently hear that authors are paid royalties when their books are borrowed from a library. This claim is not true. "

I'm not sure what he's trying to say. In the UK, public libraries are part of the PLR scheme in which 1,000 annually-rotated libraries provide their lending details which are then scaled-up in a linear fashion and the royalties calculated on that basis.

It does mean that low-volume authors might not receive royalties one year if their loans were not sampled, but the concept is that they'd receive out-of-proportion royalties the next year when the sample set rotated.

The only reason a sample was used instead of direct measurement was due to the volume of data; automation could nowadays calculate per-author royalties on an all-branches basis.

Source: I summer-jobbed in a library back in the mid-90s and compiled the PLR statistics for the branch.

https://www.plr.uk.com/libraryInformation/sampleLibLists.htm

Re: You can't defend public libraries and oppose file-sharing

#19

Post by Quanticles »

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #2

This 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…

Agreed. You could say that public libraries have a natural limit to their degree of sharing, whereas online filesharing does not.

For instance, when a popular book comes out the library might have a couple copies. If hundreds want to read those copies then they'll have to wait. Many of those people will be unwilling to wait and buy the book instead, which supports the author.

Re: You can't defend public libraries and oppose file-sharing

#20

Post by gayprogrammer »

Many comments here compare the cost of a physical library to near-zero cost of the internet, but that's not a fair comparison itself.

The cost of a physical library is physical, not informational. The article describes a situation where information sharing was challenged by the industry that has a physical monopoly on media (books). They were not granted informational monopoly, they only have monopoly on physical manufacturing.

Thus the absence of physical cost (or difference in efficiency) of sharing information does not change the concept of a library.

Post reply on HN