It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Libraries Vs Internet Piracy

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Ladies and gentlemen, what is the difference between a library and people illegally downloading songs, movies and other things? The main argument of the music industry is that it causes them to lose revenue. However libraries surely do this exact same thing to authors right? I mean the library may buy five copies of a book and loan that book to thousands of people! So what is the difference? Many downloaders go by a simple philosophy.

If i like it i'll buy it.

This is a sound philosophy becuase it encourages people to make quality products. Consider that to watch a new movie might cost you 10 pounds in some cinemas. Now consider if you don't like it you've just paid 10 pounds to have over an hour of your life wasted. If you download that same film you can watch it, like it and then buy it if you really loved it. I think the future of film would be an online download system like iTunes where even the newest films can be downloaded at the same time as cinema dates.

I fail to see the difference between a library and illegal downloading. Both of these things share the work of artists to many people without payment to the artist. So why are libraries protected as reserves of knowledge and sharing online is considered criminal? How do libraries escape the law?




posted on May, 16 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   
I'm a librarian so I have a little perspective.

The difference is in making the copy physical. It's just as illegal for someone to borrow a stack of DVD's from their local library and make copies as it is for that same person to download a movie and burn a copy of it.

I don't know of any case resulting in conviction of someone downloading movies, watching them, then deleting the movie. Convictions are always these kids who have discs and drives of the music or movies stored.

There are some issues in library land that really push the envelope like downloadable audio book that if left on the first device would self-destruct or delete themselves after the virtual loan period was up but once transferred to another device can be burned to disc or reformatted. Now is that legitimate borrowing or illegal copying?

If the hard-core copyright folks had their way libraries would be shut down all over the place.

As a librarian one of the things we'd like to do is copy our DVD collection and set the copies out for circulation as a way to deter theft and loss due to damage. The jury's out as far as our board goes as to whether or not that would bring down the hammer on our .s.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


I can most certainly agree with you. However I would like to go on record and state that If the Movie and music industries didn't rip us off by charging so much and giving the talent behind said works only a fraction of the actual sale price, then we would most certainly not have as many problems with pirating. Sorry but I got sick of paying 16-20 dollars for a cd and finding only 1 good song on it a while ago.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
I'm a librarian so I have a little perspective.

The difference is in making the copy physical. It's just as illegal for someone to borrow a stack of DVD's from their local library and make copies as it is for that same person to download a movie and burn a copy of it.

I don't know of any case resulting in conviction of someone downloading movies, watching them, then deleting the movie. Convictions are always these kids who have discs and drives of the music or movies stored.


Maybe you should recheck that because anyone caught downloading is breakign the law and can be prosecuted. There was a case of an 11 year old girl in the UK who was being done for that exact reason. The simple record of a download seems to be enough unless you can prove that someone else was using your connection.

As for your argument of making physical copies. Well i'm afraid this is mute, the library you attend rents out copies to thousands of people, the peopel who download it are doing nothing more then saving themselves a trip to the library. Either way the writer loses money and this seems to be the main focus behind the legal actions, the loss of revenue.


Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
There are some issues in library land that really push the envelope like downloadable audio book that if left on the first device would self-destruct or delete themselves after the virtual loan period was up but once transferred to another device can be burned to disc or reformatted. Now is that legitimate borrowing or illegal copying?


Well if that was done outside of a library it would be illegal copying but inside a library it's legal, you see the inconsistancy here?


Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
If the hard-core copyright folks had their way libraries would be shut down all over the place.


Yes and that would be an absolute crime, and i mean a moral crime. To deny people information is one of the worst crimes that can be commited. I know people will say that's silly, bring up all sorts of atrocitices as a counter point but i would argue that many atrocities come about due to lack of information and a manipulation of the public becuase of lack of information.


Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
As a librarian one of the things we'd like to do is copy our DVD collection and set the copies out for circulation as a way to deter theft and loss due to damage. The jury's out as far as our board goes as to whether or not that would bring down the hammer on our .s.


What you mention here is nothing more than piracy and that is what gets me. You are obviously trying to share knowledge and that should be celebrated, not criminalised. In my humble view if someone makes a great movie or tv show or book then i will buy it, but having a preview should not be illegal and if it isn't good enough to buy, then it'll simply weed out the rubbish.

Isn't this how corporations work? The things that sell get more input, the things that don't get dropped. I think downloading is just an extension of this. Obviously some people will abuse it, but no matter what systems you put in place people will always abuse it. The point is that most will buy things they enjoy.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Do you seriously not know the difference between a public library and internet piracy?

Do you know what is really being implied in this particular comparison?

The comparison ulitmately rests with ethics and what is and is not ethical.
As such, the prime question to be asked from this comparison is: Are libraries as unethical as internet piracy?

Answer:

Libraries are ethical (i.e.: borrowing).
Internet piracy is unethical (i.e.: stealing).

Libraries have utmost respect for intellectual property and the rights of publishers, authors, artists, etc.
Internet piracy has NO respect for intellectual property and the rights of publishers, authors, artists, etc.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
I don't know what UK law is, but I imagine it's somewhat similar to U.S. copyright law.

The first level of copyright law that allows libraries to work is the first sales doctrine. It states that anyone can do anything with a lawfully acquired physical copy of a piece of intellectual property. I can buy ten copies of a book and lend them out, rent them, resell them, burn them, whatever.

When digital works of intellectual property began to be produced, than the waters got muddied. Laws such as the Digital Millenium Copyright Act were passed to try to clarify how to handle IP like software.

Section 108 of the U.S. copyright law also allows libraries to make copies of their holdings under limited circumstances such as for archival purposes. It is also the law that allows libraries to perform interlibrary loan functions with each other.

So there's nothing illegal about what libraries do. It's written in the law. So the question is why do libraries get to do this? Because as of now there's still a general societal understanding that libraries facilitate the need for information that societies need to operate.

On the flip side of how libraries affect IP commerce. We don't. In fact authors love libraries. Why? Because we are an effective tool to market their product. First time authors love libraries because we are often the principle buyers of their product. The Stephen Kings and J.K. Rowlings love libraries because we are an effective way of keeping their works in circulation. Publishers often have the last say about when an author's work gets to stay in publication. When they decide to cut the life line, libraries will still have copies of these orphaned works.

I'm a working librarian and a struggling writer. I would be totally blown away if the thousands of libraries all over the country bought my book. They would help me gain readers and help me recover my advance against royalties.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Do you seriously not know the difference between a public library and internet piracy?

Do you know what is really being implied in this particular comparison?

The comparison ulitmately rests with ethics and what is and is not ethical.
As such, the prime question to be asked from this comparison is: Are libraries as unethical as internet piracy?

Answer:

Libraries are ethical (i.e.: borrowing).
Internet piracy is unethical (i.e.: stealing).


Oh but you make it sound so simple and fail to see the obvious truth. Let us compare this directly.

Libraries provide a book to thousands of people, these people read that single book depriving the author of revenue. It may gain the author knowledge of their existence and lead to revenue.

The illegal shares online also gain the author that notieriety, and i would argue that more people would read online than they would a library so this gives them more publicity. The internet also provides thousands and even millions access to the knowledge. You say it is stealing but surely it is just an electronic form of borrowing.

Your argument is sadly baseless as libraries and online sharing provide the exact same benefits.


Originally posted by Seekerof
Libraries have utmost respect for intellectual property and the rights of publishers, authors, artists, etc.
Internet piracy has NO respect for intellectual property and the rights of publishers, authors, artists, etc.


Oh how wrong you are. I'm sorry but you obviously know nothing of the online community because they have such respect for artists it is hard to believe. Their annoyance is often at the corporations who steal the artists money and who destroy creativity.



Originally posted by Toromos
I don't know what UK law is, but I imagine it's somewhat similar to U.S. copyright law.

The first level of copyright law that allows libraries to work is the first sales doctrine. It states that anyone can do anything with a lawfully acquired physical copy of a piece of intellectual property. I can buy ten copies of a book and lend them out, rent them, resell them, burn them, whatever.


My simple question is what is different between you sharing your book to 10 thousand people and me sharing the same book electronically to 10 thousand people? The author gains the same publicity and the same revenue, that being no revenue.


Originally posted by Toromos
So there's nothing illegal about what libraries do. It's written in the law. So the question is why do libraries get to do this? Because as of now there's still a general societal understanding that libraries facilitate the need for information that societies need to operate.


Get with the times, the internet is doing exactly what libraries have been doing for many years. The internet facilitates the information that societies need to operate. It could easily be argued that the internet is in fact a less biased provider of information as it can be provided by anyone, with any bias and peopel can make their minds up. Instead of one or two sources we have hundreds.


Originally posted by Toromos
On the flip side of how libraries affect IP commerce. We don't. In fact authors love libraries. Why? Because we are an effective tool to market their product. First time authors love libraries because we are often the principle buyers of their product. The Stephen Kings and J.K. Rowlings love libraries because we are an effective way of keeping their works in circulation. Publishers often have the last say about when an author's work gets to stay in publication. When they decide to cut the life line, libraries will still have copies of these orphaned works.


I'm sorry but well, nonsense. The internet can reach millions of people in a moment, libraries can reach hundreds of thousands within their own country only. If you simply talk of publicity then the internet is completely superior. The internet is the ultimate way of keeping things in circulation because once it is online it is always online.


Originally posted by Toromos
I'm a working librarian and a struggling writer. I would be totally blown away if the thousands of libraries all over the country bought my book. They would help me gain readers and help me recover my advance against royalties.



Oh but lets be clear, you would lose a great amount of revenue when the libraries shared those books instead of each user buying that book! Don't you see the hypocrisy here? Surely if you support internet censorship you should stop libraries because they also cause you to lose money. If it is simple publicity that the libraries provide then the internet beats them hands down.

The solution would be providing your works at reduced costs online for everyone. Take a look at Popcap games as an example of a compnay that has embraced the online world, reducing their costs and making a fortune out of it.

Libraries gives thousands of users access to books without the author receiving any real money, the internet is the same. However if media was provided online with smaller costs to purchase then people would more readily buy it. Most importantly of all is that the middle men, publishers would be cut out and the main bulk of the money would go to the creators of the media.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   
The difference is one thing you are stealing, the other you are permitted to take for a predetermined amount of time and you have the intentions of bringing it back....

In other words you have permission to take books, cds and movies from the library for free because you agree to bring them back. There is no stealing invloved.

If you do not bring them back however than it IS stealing and you get fined. So you do pay the price if you steal, whether it be from a record company or from the library.



[edit on 16-5-2009 by gimme_some_truth]



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


I'm afraid you and others have missed the point of the thread. The music industry and other are compaining about lost revenue. Libraries most definitely reduce revenue.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   
/* Begin Query */

Who runs these public libraries?

What is required by the public library to check out a resource?

/* Somewhat off topic... */

Who cares that a prereleased/unfinished copies of the Hulk or Wolverine makes it into the hands of anyone?

Who really cares and more importantly why would they care if it was freely circulated to a few potentially paying customers?

/* End Query */

Asking questions will yield some interesting answers.

* Footnote: If you had your library ID card and started checking out books on 'taboo' subjects... (After the public library had finished running it's daily reports and discovered your interest in 'taboo' subject matter.) Wouldn't someone be interested as to why your interest in 'taboo' subjects? Hate to sound like a Conspiracy Theorist because the mainstream image of CT's is rather dim. Some thought might be required to speculate as to the why's... Perhaps to exercise control, surveillance or worse?


EDIT To add: I didn't address internet aspect but I think it's there between the lines in a really tiny font... almost invisible, except to those with keen vision.

[edit on 5·16·09 by DrMattMaddix]



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 



GREAT comparison


seriously i cant believe more people havent used this as a comparison to the situation

illegal downloading and libraries are very much the same

except you dont have to leave your house to use that library, and theres no late fees


i find it interesting that even libraries rent movies

for free

the hollywood library by vine has a huge collection of films, not just old ones, often times they have some new dvd releases

so whats the difference?

its legal to go to the library and check out one of their copies

but its illegal to borrow the same material from a online source

just shows more hypocrisy in this bs system of ours

i thank you for your incredible comparison and i know if i ever get in a lawsuit for im using that as my defense





this isnt a personal jab to anyone in particular, but if anyone in this thread or world actually thinks internet downloading is any different morally or ethically wise, then you need to go back to the drawing board and work on your skills of comprehension

without detracting from the ops intellect, i feel like a absolute fool (along with many others im sure after they read this thread) for not making the association of these 2 long ago


now just for the record
if one were to take the material, either from the library or a online forum, and make copies of that item with intent to sell and make personal profit off of someone elses work
then that should always be illegal and punishable

but if downloading for personal use, there is no difference between that and a library and we need to get that into legislation to shut these fools up that keep bringing these frivolous lawsuits



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrMattMaddix
/* Begin Query */


* Footnote: If you had your library ID card and started checking out books on 'taboo' subjects... (After the public library had finished running it's daily reports and discovered your interest in 'taboo' subject matter.) Wouldn't someone be interested as to why your interest in 'taboo' subjects? Hate to sound like a Conspiracy Theorist because the mainstream image of CT's is rather dim. Some thought might be required to speculate as to the why's... Perhaps to exercise control, surveillance or worse?



i also thought of the control, surveillance advantage that libraries have over the internet, but honestly if you think about it, it isnt that much more advantageous on their part as they can monitor internet downloading almost as easy as a library, maybe the library is more centralized and paper oriented but those in charge can monitor what we download just as easy as what books we check out, maybe a little harder, but i dont think theyre breaking a sweat

i mean they must have a way to monitor what people download because people get emails from the isp's telling them someone has found out they have downloaded something illegally and the isps name the exact file that was downloaded, and the isp asks the client to stop



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dramey
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 



GREAT comparison

without detracting from the ops intellect, i feel like a absolute fool (along with many others im sure after they read this thread) for not making the association of these 2 long ago


now just for the record
if one were to take the material, either from the library or a online forum, and make copies of that item with intent to sell and make personal profit off of someone elses work
then that should always be illegal and punishable

but if downloading for personal use, there is no difference between that and a library and we need to get that into legislation to shut these fools up that keep bringing these frivolous lawsuits


Indeed, you hit the nail on the .!

I've been checking out many resources ... sometimes for an extended period... without late fees.

Some software companies will allow you to check out their software using an educational option that greatly reduces your cost and increases their earning potential (silly example: you learn MS Office and recommend it to others.)

Your 'copy' of a resource, whether illegal or not, will eventually become obsolete or deteriorate into reusable electrons or reusable organic material. We all win, the rest is legal and mental masturbation.

Illegal copies for sale is the real objective.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
My simple question is what is different between you sharing your book to 10 thousand people and me sharing the same book electronically to 10 thousand people? The author gains the same publicity and the same revenue, that being no revenue.


The short answer is one is legal (lending paper books) and one is illegal (distributing digital IP without consent).


Get with the times, the internet is doing exactly what libraries have been doing for many years. The internet facilitates the information that societies need to operate. It could easily be argued that the internet is in fact a less biased provider of information as it can be provided by anyone, with any bias and peopel can make their minds up. Instead of one or two sources we have hundreds.


I'm not sure what you mean by that the internet can be provided by anyone. ISPs provide access to the internet, a lot are commercial, some are governmental, some are even libraries. Our library subscribes to hundreds of internet databases and resources that provides probably a thousand times more content than we could shelve in paper, so I'm not sure we're at cross purposes here.


I'm sorry but well, nonsense. The internet can reach millions of people in a moment, libraries can reach hundreds of thousands within their own country only. If you simply talk of publicity then the internet is completely superior. The internet is the ultimate way of keeping things in circulation because once it is online it is always online.


Except that the field of publishing works like many other consumptive industries, through advertising. Say I'm a serious reader of science fiction. Sure, I could wade through thousands of poorly written novels available on the internet. But my money and time is limited. I want to get something I know I will enjoy and won't be wasting my money on. So there are established publishers such as Ace, Daw, Dell that produce agented and edited books.

Eliminating the middle man is a nice idea in theory, but in practice all that work of editing, marketing, publicity, etc would fall on the shoulders of creators. Except creators for the large part don't want to be involved in any of the work that publishers (the middle men) do. They want to write, record music, whatever.

Plus, things disappear from the internet all the time. Formats in data change. A daily scan of posts here on ATS will show that many links to sources of info turn up as 404 errors.


Oh but lets be clear, you would lose a great amount of revenue when the libraries shared those books instead of each user buying that book! Don't you see the hypocrisy here? Surely if you support internet censorship you should stop libraries because they also cause you to lose money. If it is simple publicity that the libraries provide then the internet beats them hands down.


I don't support internet censorship. I'm not sure where that came from. So now on to publishing. The typical print author earns little on royalties. Why? Because the publishers give them an advance against royalties, which is a kind of no strings loan that they will recuperate x amount of dollars in the sale of your book. Except most authors don't sell enough to pay the publisher back for the advance. So libraries, or whoever buys my book, isn't taking anything from me.


The solution would be providing your works at reduced costs online for everyone. Take a look at Popcap games as an example of a compnay that has embraced the online world, reducing their costs and making a fortune out of it.


I am assuming this company produces the content and also publishes it? Well that works great, except book publishers don't produce their own content. Writers do. Writers do not want to waste their time worrying about market reports and coordinating salesman to sell their product. They want to write.


Libraries gives thousands of users access to books without the author receiving any real money, the internet is the same. However if media was provided online with smaller costs to purchase then people would more readily buy it. Most importantly of all is that the middle men, publishers would be cut out and the main bulk of the money would go to the creators of the media.


But I'm a writer. I want to write stories. I don't want to worry about the intricacies of marketing my book. That's what I pay an agent for, as a 15% on my advance. She works with the publisher to get the book to the markets that will buy it. And it's money well spent. The agent worries about market reports, taxes, meeting with the cover artists and the copy editor and the printer and the book store reps and the libraries where I might do a reading.

As an experiment you should write a book. Say a mid range 90,000 word novel. That usually takes about a year to write. Post that book on a personal website. Offer that book as a download for $5.00. And let's see how much money is made.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Dramey
 


I agree to a certain degree... Both methods of tracking, either via library or access logs via ISP.

However, there's a huge difference with ISP logs.

If you are using P2P and using Torrent's then the user is attempting to get something for nothing. That's the attraction of these elements.

If, however, you access private 'libraries' on the internet or even public 'libraries' such as newsgroups... logs are usually destroyed. (Depends on whose service you use.) The tracking trail is much more difficult to follow and your interests and privacy has a higher protection from prying eyes.

Nothing is perfect. With little effort, your privacy can be much more secure.

P2P is so... right out there and in the mainstream. Like dropping your draws for a strip search.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
The difference is one thing you are stealing, the other you are permitted to take for a predetermined amount of time and you have the intentions of bringing it back....

In other words you have permission to take books, cds and movies from the library for free because you agree to bring them back. There is no stealing invloved.

If you do not bring them back however than it IS stealing and you get fined. So you do pay the price if you steal, whether it be from a record company or from the library.



[edit on 16-5-2009 by gimme_some_truth]

Copying is NOT stealing!
It might be also be labeled illegal, immoral or whatever (i personally don't care), but it definately is not synonym with stealing!

Ko3



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toromos
The short answer is one is legal (lending paper books) and one is illegal (distributing digital IP without consent).


I'm afraid you have missed the point of the thread here.


Originally posted by Toromos

I'm not sure what you mean by that the internet can be provided by anyone. ISPs provide access to the internet, a lot are commercial, some are governmental, some are even libraries. Our library subscribes to hundreds of internet databases and resources that provides probably a thousand times more content than we could shelve in paper, so I'm not sure we're at cross purposes here.


Well again by providing internet access the llibrary is providing access to content that most people have to pay for. So why is it we allow libraries to provide content to everyone that others pay for seperatly?



Originally posted by Toromos

Except that the field of publishing works like many other consumptive industries, through advertising. Say I'm a serious reader of science fiction. Sure, I could wade through thousands of poorly written novels available on the internet. But my money and time is limited. I want to get something I know I will enjoy and won't be wasting my money on. So there are established publishers such as Ace, Daw, Dell that produce agented and edited books.


You are short sighted. Take a look at Digg.com. The idea would be that books were provided for a minimal price, people would vote them up and down and then it would take off, people would buy the bestselling books. Just as happens in the real world people follow the crowd, buy the bestselling or recommended book. The difference is that if it were all online the choice would be greater to access and the author would gain greater revenue.


Originally posted by Toromos
Eliminating the middle man is a nice idea in theory, but in practice all that work of editing, marketing, publicity, etc would fall on the shoulders of creators. Except creators for the large part don't want to be involved in any of the work that publishers (the middle men) do. They want to write, record music, whatever.


Again you are short sighted, as is the case with many writers. You place your ideas in the hands of people who never have any of their own. Imagine a website where ideas are presented for free, as they are. If people liked your writing they would start to buy you rbooks and over time you would gain a nice income and respect. A following would occur and you'd be set for life.


Originally posted by Toromos
Plus, things disappear from the internet all the time. Formats in data change. A daily scan of posts here on ATS will show that many links to sources of info turn up as 404 errors.


Web pages may move but they are never gone. Every day the web is logged, i'm sorry but if you think things are gone when posted online then you are naieve. They are never gone, a web page may move but it is not gone. Google itself logs web pages or you can check out the internet archive project which has bots constantly searching the web and saving it all.



Originally posted by Toromos
I don't support internet censorship. I'm not sure where that came from. So now on to publishing. The typical print author earns little on royalties. Why? Because the publishers give them an advance against royalties, which is a kind of no strings loan that they will recuperate x amount of dollars in the sale of your book. Except most authors don't sell enough to pay the publisher back for the advance. So libraries, or whoever buys my book, isn't taking anything from me.


Take out the publisher and imagine a time when publishers are gone, obsolete. The internet is now your publisher. It provides you, at minimal cost a grand stage to place your ideas. You get the majority of income. Here you don't lose anything, you gain money solely upon the quality of your ideas. It sounds like you are scared that your ideas may not measure up to the opinions of others. Please do not think i am lacking respect, anyone who chooses to write has my respect but your income, with this system would be based upon your ability to write. Not the hopes of a publisher to manipulate people into buying the book.


Originally posted by Toromos
I am assuming this company produces the content and also publishes it? Well that works great, except book publishers don't produce their own content. Writers do. Writers do not want to waste their time worrying about market reports and coordinating salesman to sell their product. They want to write.


Again you sadly miss the point. If your books were great they would attract many people just as popcaps games attracted many people. The product speaks for itself.



Originally posted by Toromos
But I'm a writer. I want to write stories. I don't want to worry about the intricacies of marketing my book. That's what I pay an agent for, as a 15% on my advance. She works with the publisher to get the book to the markets that will buy it. And it's money well spent. The agent worries about market reports, taxes, meeting with the cover artists and the copy editor and the printer and the book store reps and the libraries where I might do a reading.

As an experiment you should write a book. Say a mid range 90,000 word novel. That usually takes about a year to write. Post that book on a personal website. Offer that book as a download for $5.00. And let's see how much money is made.


I have no interest in writing so how could i write a good book? You yourself need to conduct this experiment. However let us do some simple social experiments using the downloading community as an example. If you took a stand and offered your work for free to start with then many people would download it. Take a look at recent attempts at this, the pay as you want schemes by big bands like radio.. They have still made money because they have a following and people like their stuff.

In the end if people like what you put out they will reward you, if they don't you will be forgotten. That is the basis of capitalism, if you need to rely on loans in the hope your books will turn a profit then maybe you are not good enough to do what you do.

The truth hurts, but it is the public who decide whether you deserve to have your points entered into the social consciousness.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   
In principle, the only difference I can think of is that a library loans temporarily, while a download is permanent. That, and the artificial difference that downloading it is illegal but libraries are legal.

Personally, I think all information should have free access for all, whether it is books, movies, artwork, computer programs/software, or whatever else. Now admittedly, other than a short story or two on ATS, and a few bits of software here and there, I haven't put anything out there in those categories, but those few things that I have I am perfectly willing to let anyone use for free, as long as it's clear I made them.

I realize that point of view has its own problems, like that there is no financial incentive, but I still think it's better than the current system where we get gouged in the wallet for that sort of thing. Look at the price of movies or music, for instance. A lot of nonfiction books are the same way, though I don't mind dropping $8-10 for a decent novel, but $50 for a history text or $200 for an engineering book are just obscene.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   
So I read this thread earlier and decided not to post. And then I read it again now and decided I had something to say.

I always wondered about Netflix, you know? It's really just a very large library that mails you the movies that you want. I wondered why they didn't have the same for books. Some companies offer a similar service for videogames.

Let's think. You can't pirate books, really, and it's not illegal to photocopy pages usually for your own reference. But there is no service that mails books to your house.

But, let's look at movies. You can buy movies. You can buy movies online. You can rent movies online and at stores. You can buy movies online that download directly to your computer. You can steal movies from stores. You can steal movies from online.

It's all very confusing. Maybe there are just so many ways to get movies now that they want everyone to be able to watch what they want, but not to burn discs.

Maybe it's because of the money that goes into making the actual DVD discs and cases.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by DragonsDemesne
I realize that point of view has its own problems, like that there is no financial incentive, but I still think it's better than the current system where we get gouged in the wallet for that sort of thing. Look at the price of movies or music, for instance. A lot of nonfiction books are the same way, though I don't mind dropping $8-10 for a decent novel, but $50 for a history text or $200 for an engineering book are just obscene.


You know you just brought up an excellent point. Imagine instead of students buying large amounts of textbooks each year for a stggering cost (several thousand pounds on some degrees), the books could be provided electronically for download at a fraction of the cost.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join