[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by schex86

Anyhow, I haven't reread all my posts but I believe that my intent in resurrecting Ben Franklin from the ancient past was to respond to another assertion made earlier that libraries are somehow more "profitable" for authors and publishers than would seem immediately apparent.

I don't think anyone argued that libraries are somehow profitable to authors. Merely that there is, generally, an agreement between authors and the library in which some sort of royalty is paid to the author per lending. Regardless of the profitability of libraries, the key factor is that there is an agreement for the lending of the book. That is what makes it different to downloading a free copy from the internet.

It was in response to this idea that downloading a copyright infringing copy of a work is the same as borrowing from the library that the entire library discussion began.

Originally Posted by schex86

However, simple math negates this argument, as even if a library pays 2 to 3 times the books typical cost, it will, in all likelihood lend that one book to thousands of subscribers free of charge. It seems a library is in direct opposition to a small group's interests, that being publishers and authors who create their literary products solely on a financial incentive, yet the vast benefits of a public library system to society in general are easily worth this rather small penalty.

Just because public libraries reduce a bit of financial incentive for one small group, as has been their characteristic from inception, does not mean they should be outlawed, and they have not. Rather they have been embraced, and will we now, as a society, take the next step and embrace the potentials of information technology in the same way.

You know, I'm yet to meet, read about, hear about or in any other way come to know about any author who writes a book soley for a financial incentive. I know about many who hope and dream and attempt to gain financially from their writing but none who write solely for financial gain. Do you see the difference?

And yet, even it there is one,(and if you know of one could you please point them out for the sake of the argument) that is their prerogative. If it goes so against your beliefs for them to do that then by all means don't buy their book.

Further, I don't believe anyone was arguing that the library system should somehow be scrapped or abolished. So even should someone want to write a book solely for a financial gain, their book would, most likely, still be available for lending from libraries and no one is arguing that it shouldn't be.

Originally Posted by schex86

It may take someone like Franklin, as demonstrated also by his reaction to the patent on his woodstove design, who placed his concern with the greater good far above his own personal gain, to bring about this change in our thinking, and to facilitate this transfer of power, as well as negating forever the ability of an entrenched and shortsighted few to create environments of artificial scarcity in terms of human knowledge.

Ben Franklin was a great man. He was also a very wealthy man. It is generally much easier for a wealthy man to put the needs of society ahead of his own financial gain. I wonder if he would have put a patent on his woodstove idea and attempted to make money from the idea if he was poor and trying to pay his bills while working at a dead end job he hated. Maybe, maybe not.

Originally Posted by schex86

And just because an idea occurred in the past, does not necessarily lessen its worth, or conversely, improve upon it. However, Franklin's ideas and actions as a Founding Father of the US tend to stand on their own merits, and he is generally recognized as one of the greatest thinkers, and more importantly, doers, of the past millennium. Plus, I just happened to be reading his book and thought his views on the matter could be relevant to the discussion.

I never said that just because an idea happened in the pass means it is of less worth.

I said it does not add to the debate to argue that just because something was done a certain way in the past then it should be done so that way now. My remark was in response to a specific remark of yours and not aimed at your entire post. That is why I quoted only that specific portion of your post.

Cheers,
PKFFW