Hacker News Reader

Comment by jeffreyrogers | Hacker News Reader

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 would effectively be stealing from the publishers and authors, as file sharing sites are currently.

View on HN

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

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

It's not a modernization question, it's a political battle. See

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/01/opinion/e-books-libraries-...

for example. Some points from there:

1. It's only been in the last couple years that all of the big publishers would actually sell eBooks to libraries. 2. It's not selling, it's licensing, with severe restrictions. 3. They charge higher rates for the eBooks to Libraries than they do to the general public. 4. Some publishers only offer eBooks to libraries when the books have been out for six months.

Not in the article, but also important: publishers claim that libraries cannot simply digitize and loan out e-versions of their existing book catalogs--they claim that the eBooks are a different product, and that libraries have no license to do that. That would probably not stand up in court, but libraries aren't eager to antagonize the publishers, from whom they are still trying to get regular eBooks at regular prices.

The article is kind of ill-informed on this, too, I'm afraid. The difference between filesharing and public libraries is that public libraries operate within de facto and legal restrictions that don't apply to filesharing. A much better comparison, that fits the author's claim that the only difference is efficiency, is home taping and CD-copying.

Except ebooks come with licensing terms. You can't just buy one copy of a book and give it out infinite times. They have limits on use. Its modeled very closely on the physical book system.

>You can't just buy one copy of a book and give it out infinite times.

You very much can though, that's the beautiful power of digital media. Publishing companies with outdated business models are relying on archaic laws to prevent you from doing this. But it can be done!

Funny how we work so hard to simulate old models of scarcity rather than be brave enough to adopt new models that accept post-scarcity as the way forward.

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com