[wizwor]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

The person I responded to had quite a different attitude towards sharing than occasionally lending them to family or a friend. His point was about having no problem to obtain the book from an illegal source, not to borrow a book from a friend who has bought it.

Presumptuous and incorrect. You have twisted my condemnation of socially acceptable piracy into an advocacy of its competition. Let me help...

Originally Posted by wizwor

I'm no fan of copyright law, but public libraries are nothing more than a loophole in this. My public library has DVD, VHS, and audio book sections that are MUCH more popular than the book section. There are copy machines which are used almost exclusively to violate copyright law. All at taxpayer expense.

The conditions that led to the creation of public libraries no longer exist. People should use Netflix, Blockbuster, Amazon, B&N, and other resources to acquire entertainment. The resources required to educate poor children can be found in the public schools.

Originally Posted by wizwor

The impact is much bigger than copyright -- copyright is simply the most obvious problem. The libraries compete with commercial entities. How can blockbuster rent a movie for two bucks when the same DVD can be taken out of the library for free?

Does fair use cover copying of Consumer Reports ratings and reviews? RIAA sues people for downloading an album over the internet but has no problem with people ripping a cd borrored from their public library.

Originally Posted by wizwor

A few posts back we were talking about ethics. It would seem to me that ethics would require that public libraries limit their offerings to educational and historical materials.

I think that right to share IP without restriction would be explicitly granted by the IP rights holders.

I can't, for the life of me, reconcile the conflicting images of 'not-for-profit' IP distributers as 1) pirates, and 2) keepers of "the memory of humankind, irreplaceable repositories of documents of human thought and action" -- especially when those wrapped in the latter make all the money.

Originally Posted by wizwor

I didn't vote for that, but I see your point -- Public Libraries are Taxpayer Funded Government Sanctioned Pirates.

Originally Posted by wizwor

Piracy is a term of art. In discussion of intellectual property, it includes unauthorized sharing and unauthorized reproduction. Since there is no actual theft involved, the rationalization is that unauthorized sharing pre-empts sales resulting in loss of potential income to someone. Some argue that the opposite is true -- that people sampling music, video, or literature choose to purchase the materials and related materials.

It's illogical to contend that libraries increase sales while torrents pre-empt sales.

I believe lending amongst friends is generally unauthorized. Is that covered by fair use? Can I share a DVD with a friend legally? What if it is a backup? Or a digital copy? Can I share it off my PC if I limit access to the shared area? If so, what restrictions must be applied? If you pick up my kindle and read a book I purchased is that OK? What if my college kid watches Netflix with his friends using my account? What if he is not in the room? Can I loan an iPad full of copyrighted materials to a friend?

It's messy and most people are guilty of breaking these laws in some manner on a regular basis.

I'm not opposed to lending of materials at all. I'm simply opposed to separate standards. Going back to the original post, I think the solution is obvious: an ebook can only be borrowed by one person at a time. Just like a physical book.

For the rest of us, I think sharing something is OK as long as you are not profiting from another's work. If you do not want others to freely peer into the garden that you planted, watered, and nurtured, put a fence around it and charge admittance. Or give something extra to paying customers.

PS it's completely naive to suggest that libraries protect IP. The only difference between a public library and a torrent web site is that libraries protect their 'pirates' privacy better than internet service providers.

Originally Posted by wizwor

I didn't say that. I said it's illogical to say that libraries cause sales and other lenders cost sales. They both do the same thing -- allow people to enjoy media without paying. If you want to say that a library causes one less lost sale, well...fine.

I lost interest in the thread once we got to the 'public-good-i-don't-want-to-live-in-a-world-without-sharing' phase. We all need to agree to disagree. It's not possible to convince someone who routinely consumes another's product without compensation that it wrong. It's something they need to realize on their own. Good luck with that.