81–89 of 89 posts
I'm curious to what extent this comparison holds true for the content these two systems share. My (under informed) understanding is that piracy mostly traffics in movies, TV shows, video games, anime, adult content ahem , etc. While libraries loan some of those things, they mostly loan books. If PirateBay was mostly promoting the sharing of fiction and nonfiction, I might be inclined to buy this argument for an educa…
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…
But surely many publishers view libraries as affronts to intellectual property, as libraries buy both software and books and charge their users almost nothing, relying instead on minimal fees, taxes, and donations. Unless libraries are paying royalties or something like that, they have basically appropriated the works of authors and publishers by brute political and social muscle.
The fact that it's difficult to combat the goodwill credit score of libraries just means that businesses and authors assuage themselves with your magnitude argument: "Well, it's not that much profit or control loss. Communities will never learn how to scale their resources, especially in high-population areas where consensus is often difficult in government."
Also, libraries may fuel arguments for the public, forming a slippery slope by which the public continues to take from the private sphere for communal benefit. If libraries didn't exist, it would be a lot harder to appeal to the public via, "This website is just like a public library! It is an institution of community learning and knowledge for all."
I think the symbolic threat of libraries means that any attempt to establish a culture of digital libraries should be severely challenged.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 phy…
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…
Which is exactly why I think it's silly to think that one's views on libraries must decide one's views on file sharing. They're extremely different things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 w…
So you're just wrong, technically as well as practically.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 w…
Wait, copyright infringement isn't theft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States So you're just wrong, technically as well as practically.
What is the correct term for taking something that isn't yours?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait, copyright infringement isn't theft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States So you're just wrong, technically as well as practically.
Interesting. I didn't know that. What is the correct term for taking something that isn't yours?
I suppose that you're referring to "theft", but copyright infringement isn't theft: it's just infringement. So, mind your terminology in the future, and you'll be just fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 phy…
I understand all of that, but how is it relevant to the question of the utility, legality, and morality of libraries and file sharing? The fact that people can do legally or morally questionable things with the stuff they borrow from libraries has no real bearing on the legality or morality of the libraries themselves.
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…
Do you think that peer to peer filesharing communities are not also funded and maintained by the community that uses it? I contend that this is exactly the case. There must also be an original legitimate customer of the work being shared, so the publisher is still getting paid. The difference does only lie in efficiency. In a world of ever-increasing efficiency, why do we shackle libraries to 20th Century levels of s…
A community that shares a public library is a community that shares a very broad range of common customs, traditions, values, and interests. They are literal neighbors. They have a shared interest in the success of the community along multiple economic, social, and cultural dimensions. "Knowledge for the common good" is a value, but pursuit of that value conflicts with other things the community also values. Resolution of all those conflicts provides natural checks and balances.
The only common interest of the "file sharing community" is sharing files, and any political or technical issues that happen to be directly related to sharing files. The virtual community can grow and expand infinitely based on only that one dimension. There are no natural checks and balances the way there would be for a real community. Instead of resolving conflicts, anyone who doesn't share that one primary value is not part of the community.