|
I think I am probably right in guessing that almost every person contributing to this debate has a library card. With that card you have access to virtually every book and many more that has been posted. Quite simply, with the rich tradition of free public libraries, downloading books is not the same morally as downloading music. And it should not be treated the same legally. As a lawyer, I look for factual distinctions that would cause a principle of law to be applied differently. Recording of broadcast material for time-shifting personal use is protected, at least in the U.S. Books are altogether different in their use and availability in that people will go through a much smaller number of books compared to music tracks and videos. The option of browsing books has heretofore only been able to be done in a bookstore or a library (I exclude personal collections of books). The denial of royalties to authors is a built-in part of the book business in that books are lent and bought as used. The downloading of books essentially accomplishes two things: 1) providing a means to browse books separate from a bookstore or library; and 2) saves the labor of either purchasing the book as used or borrowing it through interlibrary loan if not directly from the local library (I think it important to add that probably many of us only have access to meager libraries). Therefore, in the final analysis, equating the criminality of downloading music to downloading books just doesn't seem to fit in that the downloading of books does not represent much in the way of economic loss to authors because there are other legal means to acquire the book and bypass the royalties. In the case of a person downloading hundreds or even thousands of books, the act of creating a personal repository of books serves the same purpose for that person as going to the library or bookstore-an opportunity to browse, sample, and explore-not to exploit the creative energies of the author.
|