Don't the libraries buy the books/movies/etc that are in their stock? So the companies get their money, right?
People borrow them, but they eventually return them. And if you don't return something they make you pay for it, so you technically bought it even if the money only went to the library. It'd only be piracy if the library got the books in some illegal way and then sold them.
Because a library doesn't magically generate infinite copies of a given item, making it available to anyone, anywhere, for an indefinite period of time.
Dunno if they have agreements on top of that or not.
this.
it's not worth rationalizing our online piracy habits by way of claiming that a library is the same thing when clearly it's not.
Nha it simply generate infinite copies of a given knowledge, making it available to anyone anywhere(that can access the librairy) for an indefinite period of time.
The only difference is that libraries cant give out there products to everyone.
What would happen if every library in the world bought one ebook and shared it? It wouldnt work, they make each library and school library buy a seperate ebook, and make it strictly illegal to share it, to the point where the library cant let its users download it.
The only difference is reach, and availability. Libraries cant give out books to people halfway accross the world, and not only that but they have to replace lost/stolen/worn out books regularly.
The only difference is that libraries cant give out there products to everyone.
What would happen if every library in the world bought one ebook and shared it? It wouldnt work, they make each library and school library buy a seperate ebook, and make it strictly illegal to share it, to the point where the library cant let its users download it.
The only difference is reach, and availability. Libraries cant give out books to people halfway accross the world, and not only that but they have to replace lost/stolen/worn out books regularly.
Its legal piracy, and works to them because the libraries are unable to share with that many. Not only that, but i think there's a set amount of time a library has to wait before circulating newly published books.
Regardless of any arrangements or restrictions, libraries don't pay royalties for every time someone rents out a book. If they did it would cost a lot more than an annual library membership card and a few late fees.
Which means that, one of the main arguments of the big media studios is shot down.
A) If someone rents a book or movie from a library, it's likely because they're not going to go buy it. Therefore, by their logic "loss of potential revenue".
B) Likewise if someone pirates a copy of the same book or movie, "loss of potential revenue".
Ignoring the fact that not everyone who pirates something had the intention of legally purchasing it had they no other choice (which seems to be what they think), you're still left with that huge, gaping hole in their logic, at least for that argument.
Same thing with inviting a bunch of friends over to watch a DVD. You paid for the DVD, your friends didn't. How likely is each of your friends to buy the movie after seeing it with you? Loss of potential revenue.
Their loss of potential revenue argument is a big joke. They should stick to the only argument that is valid, which is that stealing is against the law.
Except loss of revenue is not an argument that is used to determine legality in the first place. It is more of an argument that explains how people who say that piracy does not negatively impact people who work and produce content are not too bright.
In the case of libraries, yes, publishers do lose some revenue in certain cases, but that is counterbalanced by the fact that libraries have been a pillar for the improvement of society for centuries (or technically millennia), not to mention the fact that they do so while following the law. You can buy a DVD and lend it to your friends so you can all watch the movie. From the company's point of view, you'd be an ass, but you're not breaking any law and the damage you do is pretty insignificant because you can't share it with hundreds of thousands of people like you would if you let people make copies of it through downloading. That is a reasonable balance.
In a related note, libraries are having trouble implementing eBook lending right now. Part of the reason is that publishers are reluctant to give their OK here as lending over the net is more convenient, so they fear it tips the balance against them too much. eBooks also don't wear out, unlike paper books, so libraries wouldn't need to order new copies to replace them. They're trying to rebalance this by adding a checkout limit for each eBook license...
Needless to say, trying to equate library lending with piracy is pretty silly.
Needless to say, trying to equate library lending with piracy is pretty silly.
Then What is used to determine legality then??
Second I do not see the logic on how legality can be counterbalanced by something because it improve society? If you are going to talk about legality right and left, isn't law ment to be all powerful. Why would library get special treatment. Shouldn't other people get special treatment then if they help society?
Anyway, to what degree is a damage insignificant and significant? What choose what is too much and what is alright. Logic doesn't seem to play much of a part in there as there doesn't seem to be a straight border defining both sides.
There is no definite logic that difference librairy over piracy. Or even sharing inbetwen friends and piracy. All there is is the degree of sharing, the distance and the different borders of society. But who is right to choose what is alright and what is too much without logic.. If you can't apply logic to place a border, you either deny it all or accept it all. and denying it all would overly displease the population...
It's not that silly. One of my school's libraries has a machine that will print you a paper copy of any book you give it.
That's rather odd. My guess would be that there are restrictions here, such as being only able to print from publishers that have agreed to this, or that you'd have to return the printed copy, or something else. The library can't just bypass copyright law here.