You can't defend public libraries and oppose file-sharing • Hacker News Board

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

#71

Post by shripadk » Wed, Sep 09, 2015, 4:14 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #53

shripadk wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lending existing copies does not prevent copying. I have come across plenty of "pirated" physical copies of various literature sold for a fraction of the actual cost.

Who said anything about preventing copying? I'm just saying that the way libraries operate does not involve making their own copies, which is a (and I would say the ) significant difference from file sharing, in terms of morality and legality.

That is an important point which you are not seeing. I can share a file (an ebook) with my "friend" which i acquired legitimately. He then makes a copy of it and distributes it via a file sharing site.

Similarly, I can borrow a book from a public library and make digital copies of it and distribute it. In fact some illegal copies of ebooks you find on file sharing sites are scanned copies of legitimately acquired physical copies (I have personally come across comics with library seals in one of the scanned pirated digital copies). Some pirates also distribute colored xerox copies of physical copies acquired from libraries.

The only difference between the two is time taken to do it.

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

#72

Post by shripadk » Wed, Sep 09, 2015, 4:22 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #53

shripadk wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lending existing copies does not prevent copying. I have come across plenty of "pirated" physical copies of various literature sold for a fraction of the actual cost.

Who said anything about preventing copying? I'm just saying that the way libraries operate does not involve making their own copies, which is a (and I would say the ) significant difference from file sharing, in terms of morality and legality.

All I'm trying to say is that you need to see the bigger picture. When it comes to file sharing people talk about "millions" of times the particular file has been downloaded only because such a statistic is easily available. Nobody questions that when it comes to Libraries lending out copies because no one looks at what happens in between the time the copy is lent and returned. Can you find any statistic that tells you how many of the "lent" library books have been pirated? For physical book pirates, libraries are a boon. They get access to thousands of books for free/cheap.

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

#73

Post by scorchpt » Wed, Sep 09, 2015, 4:24 PM UTC

chrisbennet wrote: post #30

bediger4000 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. ;-)

That is a fallacious argument. Food stealing (which you said) and food replication (which would be the fair equivalent) are different things, as are book stealing and book replication. I'm not making any judgements about neither of those, just pointing out the false equivalency.

Would you oppose if someone managed to buy just one single piece of food, then replicate it at a molecular level and at virtually no cost, and distribute it for free to the whole world, so that no one would ever have to starve ever again?

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

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

#74

Post by rhino369 » Wed, Sep 09, 2015, 4:36 PM UTC

mkozlows wrote: post #49

librvf wrote: post #17

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 equili…

The more interesting point, really, is where on the efficiency spectrum it makes sense to place our institutions. I mean, we all want libraries to continue to exist in the ebook era, right. But the old-style "library buys a single copy, and lends it to one person at a time" model, which made sense for physical books because it was a natural constraint, for ebooks is weirdly inefficient from the borrower's side and se…

That is where the "weirdly inefficient from the borrower's side" part comes in. It's a form of price discrimination. People who can't afford to pay full price, pay by their inconvenience instead.

I think we found a good equilibrium--library buys a copy and only lends it out one at a time. We know that works. Why change it.

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

#75

Post by rhino369 » Wed, Sep 09, 2015, 4:40 PM UTC

grecy wrote: post #57

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…

And this concept is shackling libraries today. My local library will only allow one person to "borrow" a given e-book at a time. You must wait until someone else returns it before you can "borrow" it for a set period of time. Obviously this is nonsense, and if the library were interested in efficient lending, they'd let everyone that wanted it borrow the e-book at the same time. IMO, the same applies to DVDs - why no…

But it's always been nonsense. A library could print their own copy of books for hundreds of years. They could easily do it since Xerox was invented. Digital just reduces the cost to copying just a little bit.

There is a fundamental difference between loaning and copying, both from a legal and moral perspective.

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

#76

Post by dogma1138 » Wed, Sep 09, 2015, 4:44 PM UTC

belorn wrote: post #16

dogma1138 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 beco…

Yes, but that's not the original argument for the support of libraries. If you want to claim that people benefit from downloading the latest game of thrones episode or the latest call of duty in the same way their great grand parents and great great grand parents did when libraries when public libraries were being established during the mid 19th century you'll find it to be quite an uphill battle.

Also since none of your examples actually stated a clear violation of copyright law on what ground do you even attempt to make an argument? Spielberg went to the movies last time I've checked.

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

#77

Post by bediger4000 » Wed, Sep 09, 2015, 5:28 PM UTC

chrisbennet wrote: post #30

bediger4000 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. ;-)

I don't understand how food, a consumable, physical object with a production cost much greater than zero, is the same as a book, which is a non-consumable physical object with a large production cost, or a file, which is not a physical object, and has a production cost so close to zero that it's not worth measuring. Can you explain a bit further how this "fixes" my statement, or my accusation of inconsistent or illogical thinking?

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

#78

Post by lazylizard » Wed, Sep 09, 2015, 5:38 PM UTC

rhino369 wrote: post #75

grecy wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this concept is shackling libraries today. My local library will only allow one person to "borrow" a given e-book at a time. You must wait until someone else returns it before you can "borrow" it for a set period of time. Obviously this is nonsense, and if the library were interested in efficient lending, they'd let everyone that wanted it borrow the e-book at the same time. IMO, the same applies to DVDs - why no…

But it's always been nonsense. A library could print their own copy of books for hundreds of years. They could easily do it since Xerox was invented. Digital just reduces the cost to copying just a little bit. There is a fundamental difference between loaning and copying, both from a legal and moral perspective.

how can one return the song one just heard on radio? does anyone intend to?

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

#79

Post by Nadya » Wed, Sep 09, 2015, 5:53 PM UTC

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…

>As long as you're not making unauthorized copies of it, you can lend it out or do whatever else you like with it.

How does this work with files? How do I distribute a file without also copying it?

If I cut->paste instead of copy->paste the file for a friend, am I distributing my original file? What happens if I give my friend my music library and decide to buy myself new music?

I'm allowed to make copies of my music for personal use (otherwise good luck getting that MP3 on your computer to play on your mobile device). I make a copy and give the original to a friend. My friend then makes a copy of the original and gives the original to their friend. The copies made are authorized and we're lending out the original.

It doesn't work once you leave physical constraints on scarcity and existence.

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

#80

Post by chrisbennet » Wed, Sep 09, 2015, 5:54 PM UTC

bediger4000 wrote: post #77

chrisbennet wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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. ;-)

I don't understand how food, a consumable, physical object with a production cost much greater than zero, is the same as a book, which is a non-consumable physical object with a large production cost, or a file, which is not a physical object, and has a production cost so close to zero that it's not worth measuring. Can you explain a bit further how this "fixes" my statement, or my accusation of inconsistent or illog…

Both are easily available without stealing - books (videos, ebooks) from libraries and food from food banks. Heck the files that are shared are usually very cheap - why not just rent/buy them?

Some will make the argument that things that are easy to duplicate are OK to steal. If I wrote a book, I can assure you it would not have a low production cost however easy it was to duplicate/steal/"share".

What is really at work here is that people have become accustom to stealing easy to duplicate works and now they will use all kinds of mental gymnastics to convince themselves that they aren't actually thieves.