How is torrenting (or other P2P file sharing) any different than a library?

[Ziero]

Re: How is torrenting (or other P2P file sharing) any different than a library?

Neither do you with a pirated copy. You can watch it, learn from it, and so on, but you don't own it.

Strawman much? Once you watch, read, or so on media it becomes much less valuable, since it's not new.

Yes they do. A library provides media to people at no (or extremely little) cost. The VALUE of that media is not in the physical materials (paper and ink), but in the ideas expressed with them. Those are the grounds that piracy is illegal on; if it was a matter of paper and ink there would be nothing to sue for in a digital world. There's also little reason for someone to purchase something that is available at a library, especially if they've already read it.


Yes, they do. Simply look at anyone who has ever bitched about reruns for proof. Again, hard drive space is limited, and there's little reason to keep a copy of a movie after you've seen it once or twice. Even if that weren't the case, libraries would still be guilty of the same crime because you can record off their videos, or just check them out again.

Another strawman. Music and Movies, shows, games, and books are extremely different. Music is something that is often left on in the background, and where repetition isn't a big deal. Right now I've had the same track playing on repeat for probably two hours, and it isn't bugging me. However, when you have to go through and focus on something, like a TV show, movie, book, etc. when you already know everything, it's going to get very boring very quickly.

Not true at all. First of all, radio hasn't actually been used to broadcast music in at least a decade. Secondly, they're supported by ads, which in turn allow them to pay royalties on the songs. The industry is still making money there, and probably far too much considering it's also basically a form of advertisement given it's extremely low quality.

Wow, you just pull things out of no where don't you?

If you pirate a movie, you then have your own *COPY* of it. It's your copy. If you rent a movie, you do not own a COPY, you borrowed a COPY. Libraries do not create copies of anything, they purchase a legally reproduced book/movie/album/whatever and allow people to experiance it free of charge for a limited amount of time. If you want to experiance it again, that's fine, you can just use the Library's COPY of that specific material as they're the ones who currently claim ownership of that COPY.

Btw, if you didn't catch it, the key word is COPY. Meaning the library does not create copies of things, but Torrents and P2P do...which is the major difference.

And as to your point that "people bitching about reruns" is proof that people don't keep things after experiancing it once, I point to you syndicated television shows that pull in decent ratings, DVD sales of television series being best sellers, people who will watch the same movie *in theaters* multiple times, then BUY the DVD upon release. In otherwords, to your anecdotal evidence about people 'bitching about reruns' I provide to you *multiple mutimillion dollar businesses that thrive on repeat viewings*.

And whether the music is 'left on in the background' or not, it's still being kept. Thus disproving your own point.

Oh and btw, I like to re-read my old books and play through my old games too!

And when's the last time you had to pay for FM? I know when I turn mine on, I don't pay a dime and it still plays music. Though to be fair, I do prefer, and pay for, satillite as it plays much less "pop" music.

Oh, and if it's still not clear to you, the difference between torrenting (or other P2P file sharing) and a library is that the library is not illegally reproducing the content they posses.

[Murphie]

Re: How is torrenting (or other P2P file sharing) any different than a library?

The gross misunderstanding of what a library does and how it works in this thread is ridiculous.

[Feba]

Re: How is torrenting (or other P2P file sharing) any different than a library?

If you pirate a movie, you then have your own *COPY* of it.

If you copy a library movie, you have your own copy of it. You also EFFECTIVELY have your own copy just by walking into the library and taking it off the shelf again (it's out? Most libraries let you set a hold on items! Pick it up next time it's in".

Meaning the library does not create copies of things,

Which is also completely irrelevant. Copyright its supposed to protect people making content. Said content is given away by the library. Libraries also facilitate the copying of content by others.

I point to you syndicated television shows that pull in decent ratings,

Which means nothing. Syndication does not mean that people have already seen it before. Recently, I've been watching a show that originally aired about a decade ago-- it's not new to me.

DVD sales of television series being best sellers,

Also means nothing. Owning it on DVD does not mean that they will watch it over and over again. First off, it's just the best way to watch TV right now (TV is interrupted quite a bit, internet distribution sucks and watching them on computer monitors is less than ideal). Secondly, some people will buy a DVD case just to support a show (Arrested Development, for example; also keep in mind Family Guy was revived because of strong DVD sales). Third, not all shows are on TV still, and those that are are frequently in a timeslot that's hard for some people to reach.

people who will watch the same movie *in theaters* multiple times

Which is exceptionally rare. And again, I never said that pirates delete a movie after the first time they watch it, I said that after you've seen all there is to see very few pirates are going to keep a copy because it takes valuable hard drive space.

And whether the music is 'left on in the background' or not, it's still being kept. Thus disproving your own point.

Not one bit. Music is not the entirety of file sharing, and speaking purely on a 'cost to produce' level, is probably one of the lowest value things pirated; when you compare it to multimillion dollar movies, video games, and the like. It's certainly not using up much bandwidth, compared to giant HD video files and such. Even if it is kept, that still doesn't excuse the fact that it's as easy to copy from a library CD as any other.

Oh and btw, I like to re-read my old books and play through my old games too!

Good for you! Doesn't matter one bit-- there is no comparison, because you don't have to keep them on your hard drive. And even if it did, guess what, you can recheck them out from the library! So we're back to libraries still being evil.

I know when I turn mine on, I don't pay a dime and it still plays music.

Again, that does not mean that radio is "giving away free music", or being 'harmful to the music industry'. They are not taking money from the industry-- they're giving money to it, while providing it with advertising. They are not distributing high quality music files, but low quality audio signals. It's not comparable.

Oh, and if it's still not clear to you, the difference between torrenting (or other P2P file sharing) and a library is that the library is not illegally reproducing the content the posses.

Google "logic". Come back here when you have a small idea what it is.

[Karinya]

Re: How is torrenting (or other P2P file sharing) any different than a library?

So, other than the fact that one of them isn't getting sued, what's the difference?

That IS the difference. Libraries have a centuries-old tradition that the MPAA and RIAA can't touch, as much as I'm sure they would like to.

If you really think IP law is passed for the benefit of the public, you're unbelievably naive or a moron. If having no copyright laws was good enough for Shakespeare, da Vinci and Bach... why the heck did we pass them again?

In return for their role in preventing the publication of books deemed heretical or seditious, the Guild's members enjoyed the economic benefits of a monopoly over the printing industry.

Oh yeah, that's right. Cronyism and censorship. It was only later, when the Guild's power was threatened by the expiration of the Licensing Acts, that the "think of the authors!" idea was thought up and foisted on the public. (Not that the public had much say anyway in 1710 England, but the English Civil War demonstrated that you didn't want to piss them off *too* much.)

[Deeke]

Re: How is torrenting (or other P2P file sharing) any different than a library?

Feba. You're wrong on this one. Give it up.

Meaning the library does not create copies of things

Which is also completely irrelevant. Copyright its supposed to protect people making content.

Damn it, no. Examine the word copyright again. The word itself is relevant. It is actually self-referential. The act of copying material is fundamental to what copyright is.

Libraries own a single copy of an artist's work. And distribute that single copy. Only one person can use that specific piece of work at any time. They do not duplicate it.

Furthermore, the argument that libraries facilitate copying is simply irreleveant to the question posed in this thread. Libraries do not control member's actions. If you borrow a CD and rip it at home, that has zero to do with a library. That is your own action.

The comparison here is "How is torrenting (or other P2P file sharing) any different than a library?" not "How is torrenting (or other P2P file sharing) any different than a copying material from a library?". The assumption that a library grants the borrower a permanent version of the work is simply inaccurate. Libraries do not condone duplicating the material.

Btw, if you didn't catch it, the key word is COPY. Meaning the library does not create copies of things, but Torrents and P2P do...which is the major difference.

This is the key point.


There are many valid arguments against the current copyrighting laws. But this isn't one of them.

[Feba]

Re: How is torrenting (or other P2P file sharing) any different than a library?

The word itself is relevant.

I am speaking intent, not literal meaning.

Only one person can use that specific piece of work at any time. They do not duplicate it.

They can, though, and the library does absolutely nothing to stop them from copying it.

Additionally, the argument that P2P sharing duplicates files isn't always true-- those files are likely to be deleted, which means that it's quite possible for no remaining copies to be left. If I download a movie, watch it, and then delete, how is that different from getting it from a local library?

Oh, and you're still ignoring the fact that copyright applies to the ideas contained within a work, and not the materials it is printed on. The library distributes the ideas inside it to a huge number of people, despite the fact that there's only one physical copy.

[Murphie]

Re: How is torrenting (or other P2P file sharing) any different than a library?

What exactly do you expect the library to do? Send an employee home with every patron? They do what they can within reason to prevent patrons from copying work, but the buck stops there.

Learn how libraries work, and what their relationship is with copyright before you start a thread about some random idea that you had while you were doing whatever it is you do with your time.

You are wrong.

[Akashimo]

Re: How is torrenting (or other P2P file sharing) any different than a library?

Feba is just trying to advocate that p2p shouldn't be illegal based on his understanding of the library system.

[Feba]

Re: How is torrenting (or other P2P file sharing) any different than a library?

What exactly do you expect the library to do?

Nothing.

They do what they can

Like, what, exactly? I've never seen a library do anything to prevent someone from copying a work.

Learn how libraries work

Learn how file sharing works.


Or better yet, stop making up fake points. You might disagree with me, but that doesn't mean I don't understand how libraries work.

Feba is just trying to advocate that p2p shouldn't be illegal

No, I'm not. Like I said (or, alluded to) in the first post, I was hoping to get some interesting replies. Unfortunately, the only interesting points were ones that had already been made, or effectively made, by the OP and what the OP was based on. Nothing contradictory has really made a good point, which is what I was hoping for.

[DakAttack]

Re: How is torrenting (or other P2P file sharing) any different than a library?

Can't get porn at the library.

[Ziero]

Re: How is torrenting (or other P2P file sharing) any different than a library?

They can, though, and the library does absolutely nothing to stop them from copying it.

Additionally, the argument that P2P sharing duplicates files isn't always true-- those files are likely to be deleted, which means that it's quite possible for no remaining copies to be left. If I download a movie, watch it, and then delete, how is that different from getting it from a local library?

Because the Library has no authority to stop people from doing so other then removing you from the Library. And even then most Librarians have no power to do anything about it. They are there to distribute their information while trying to keep the records of who checked out what while keeping the books themselves in order, not police your actions. If YOU copy a book then YOU are breaking the law, not the library. Information is free to distribute, but the RIGHT TO COPY such information is not.

But P2P *IS* Copying information. That's *EXACTLY WHAT IT IS*. It doesn't matter if a small fraction of people may delete the information after they've decided they no longer need it, it was still copied without permission. And your hypothetical, anecdotal BS that most people delete shared files is quite possibly the dumbest thing you have ever stated, especially when you start making excuses for some things which you admit don't get deleted. But that's ok, music doesn't get boring right? But good games, movies, books and computer programs do?

Oh, and you're still ignoring the fact that copyright applies to the ideas contained within a work, and not the materials it is printed on. The library distributes the ideas inside it to a huge number of people, despite the fact that there's only one physical copy.

Copyright applies to the RIGHT TO COPY.

That's it.

It's not hard to understand.

Information is free to give away AS LONG AS YOU DON'T COPY IT WITHOUT PERMISSION.

How hard is that to get?

Libraries = Own very few copies of something which were legally purchased and shared amongst a community

P2P = Creating illegal copies of something for mass distribution to hundreds and thousands and millions of people

It has nothing to do with the Information contained within any media of choice, and everything to do with the RIGHTS TO PRODUCE COPIES.

If you really think IP law is passed for the benefit of the public, you're unbelievably naive or a moron. If having no copyright laws was good enough for Shakespeare, da Vinci and Bach... why the heck did we pass them again?

My understanding was that Copyright and IP lawse exist today for the good of the original creators of something, case in point, the guys who made Superman selling their rights for $140 bucks then being muscled out of the profits for creating him. I know if I'm going to make it big with some sort of story or IP, I'd want my ideas protected so not everyone-and-their-dog can come along, copy it or claim my ideas as theirs. I mean yea, it was good enough for three of histories greatest artists, but for joe average trying to sell his book idea, especially in this day and age, it helps to have some way to stake a claim on your ideas.

Can't get porn at the library.

Ok, close the thread. Dak wins it.

[Murphie]

Re: How is torrenting (or other P2P file sharing) any different than a library?

Or better yet, stop making up fake points. You might disagree with me, but that doesn't mean I don't understand how libraries work.

What fake points?

You have made it abundantly clear that you don't understand how libraries work. I don't see how I could have come to any other conclusion from your complete lack of awareness and understanding of the subject.

I'd like to think you could admit you're wrong just this once, but I know better.

[Feba]

Re: How is torrenting (or other P2P file sharing) any different than a library?

I'd like to think you could admit you're wrong just this once

I have no problem admitting I'm wrong, when I actually am.


Anyway, I'll answer any valid replies to the thread, but there's no point answering flamebait and answers that are just plain stupid. If someone has a good point to make, I'd be happy to discuss it.

[Ziero]

Re: How is torrenting (or other P2P file sharing) any different than a library?

I think that's the closest he ever comes to actually admitting he's wrong.

[little ninja]

Re: How is torrenting (or other P2P file sharing) any different than a library?

Checking out a new release book just means I don't have to buy it now. P2P a cd just means I don't have to buy it as well. Both equal the same thing at the end. I don't have to waste money on it if I don't like it or will never use again.

Not everyone, But I personalyl don't want to waste hard earned money on a piece of garbage. Why spend 20 bucks on a cd for 1-2 good songs, and 10-12 shitty songs. same could be said for movies and Games. Why go pay 60 bucks for Heavenly Sword when its only 6 hours long and not much for replay level (my own OP).

Companies can blame P2P for their troubles. But lets face it everything and everyone is guilty in crippling it. PEople who buy 1 song on Itunes for a dollar instead of a 20 dollar cd. The kids who rent games instead of paying 60 bucks for it. The parents who rent movies on movie night instead of buying it. The radio stations for over playing songs. The record companies for finding a fresh new sound and then flooding the market with a thousand copy cats.

Vhs > Vhs: Cassette > Radio: Cassette > Cassette: Cd > Cassette, Cd > Cd: Dvd > Dvd. Pirating has been around a very long time.