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

21–30 of 89 posts

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

#21

Post by an0nym1ty »

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…

Is that not one of the most common analogies used by Pirates, the similarities between file sharing and lending a book or movie to a friend? That argument has failed for file sharing, what makes your argument different?

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

#22

Post by librvf »

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.

Well, I read the article, and the author's point about a library being for knowledge-sharing is misleading and possibly even dishonest. It's over-emphasized and ignores other important realities about how and why a library works the way it does.

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

#23

Post by mikeash »

moviuro wrote: post #14
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.

Yes, and that's the doctrine of first sale: you can do what you like with a copy you own, besides make additional unauthorized copies.

As such, libraries operate within the law and within the spirit of copyright, while file sharing doesn't.

You can certainly object to the spirit of copyright as expressed here, but there's nothing inconsistent about supporting it, and supporting public libraries.

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

#24

Post by lumisota »

moviuro wrote: post #14
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.

You say "only" as if this isn't an important distinction in terms of creating value for a copyrighted work.

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

#26

Post by JoeAltmaier »

moviuro wrote: post #14
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.

Confused: you can 'return' the movie AND keep a copy, which you distribute widely thus ruining any chance of the creator profiting by their work.

Can't do that with the physical book. Not for free anyway.

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

#27

Post by jbob2000 »

nwatson wrote: post #13
jbob2000 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I would argue that the "need for publishers and authors to make money" is where the issue lies, not in the means of knowledge transfer (libraries vs. file sharing).

Just like how governments subsidize libraries, so too should they subsidize file sharing.

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

#28

Post by mikeash »

an0nym1ty wrote: post #21
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…

Is that not one of the most common analogies used by Pirates, the similarities between file sharing and lending a book or movie to a friend? That argument has failed for file sharing, what makes your argument different?

The fact that file sharing involves copying, not lending existing copies, is significant. If pirates make that analogy then they're being ridiculous. I'm not sure I've seen it made myself.

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

#29

Post by superdude »

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.

The #1 purpose of file sharing is not knowledge sharing, it's entertainment sharing.

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

#30

Post by chrisbennet »

bediger4000 wrote: post #10
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.

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.

"Of course you can champion public food banks, and simultaneously oppose stealing food. 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."

Fixed it for you. ;-)

Post reply on HN