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

[Feba]

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

If they could find a way to come into your house and check to see if you were photocoping books, I'm sure they'd do it.

well they do.

and given how many people are arrested on charges that only exist because of voluntary searches, they'd probably have a good deal of success too.

[Kittyneko]

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

Library isn't free

I've never tried to download books, lol.

Oh in fact I have! I was trying to find online Donald Duck comics,
I found a bunch once on a site in .pdf but the site dissappeared.

Anyone know a good site to find Donald Duck comics? Preferably Dutch(lol) but English and German are fine too.

[Feba]

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

Library isn't free

uh. yes it is. I mean, they're funded with taxpayer money in most cases, but they're free to use.

Anyone know a good site to find Donald Duck comics?

I'm pretty sure that's against the rules.

[TheGrandMom]

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

well they do.

and given how many people are arrested on charges that only exist because of voluntary searches, they'd probably have a good deal of success too.

Anyone that lets them search their home voluntarily is an idiot and deserves what they get. There just is no reliable way to know if someone is copying a book and using that copy for their own pleasure. If there were, they would be sueing the pants off people I'm sure since money is the only thing on a corporations mind. Now if people scan and post it as a BT/share with others, then they are much more likely to be caught and sued.

[Feba]

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

Pretty much.

[Akashimo]

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

Now if people scan and post it as a BT/share with others, then they are much more likely to be caught and sued.

What about scanlations before a US company gets a license to it? =p

[Kittyneko]

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

uh. yes it is. I mean, they're funded with taxpayer money in most cases, but they're free to use.

My lifetime membership costed a stunning 5 dollars!

I'm pretty sure that's against the rules.

I meant.. custom.. fan made.. comics.. x.x

[TheGrandMom]

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

Anyone know a good site to find Donald Duck comics? Preferably Dutch(lol) but English and German are fine too.

DONALD DUCK COMICS - COMPLETE SERIES (1934-2006)

Do a search for Mininova.

Put in a search for Donald Duck Comic.

[Feba]

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

My lifetime membership costed a stunning 5 dollars!

Odd. Most libraries don't have a joining cost. They primarily get what little income they do from late fees and card replacements. Interesting that one would charge a membership fee.

I meant.. custom.. fan made.. comics.. x.x

suuuuure.

[little ninja]

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

My beef has always been this. How can you blame P2P people for loss of revenue when allot of people go on Itunes and buy 1 song for 99cents instead of going to a mall and buying the whole cd for 9-20 dollars.

The Library to me is the same as NEtflix. Both are harmful to their respected industries. With the library I just check out aa book I need with information or illustrations for my animation projects and I just come home and scan them to my system and take the book back. No having to go to borders to buy anything.

[Feba]

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

Well, I've brought up the subject of how incredibly relative what is and is not legal under copyright before, and yeah, it really doesn't make a lot of sense. Hell, for all the talk of damage to artists, I read a few months back that the RIAA still hadn't give any of the money from it's winnings to artists. There's also things like the RIAA trying to take credit for ANY recording, whether you're a member or not (and thus, if you don't join up, they would've basically controlled the legal status of your work anyway); and iTMS also sells songs while extremely little to no money is given to the artist. Honestly I find large companies taking advantage of piracy far more appalling than any consumer usage.

[Kitalrez]

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

There just is no reliable way to know if someone is copying a book and using that copy for their own pleasure.

Of course there is! It's called a college ID card. If you have one, you're a filthy copying thief. Or incredibly rich, in which case I'd like to discuss getting a loan from you. My last semester of grad school used about 50-60 books for 4 classes. You'd better believe I used the copiers for that. I used the ones right in the library next to the stairs on every floor, too.

[Ziero]

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

Yes, they do. Unless you only consider them to be letting people borrow ink and paper, in which case you have no reason to be supporting copyright law anyway. They are giving away the knowledge, ideas, entertainment, and so on that the books, music, games, software, and so on that the material they lend contains.

As in, what fair use is is irrelevant, the library still supports, if not encourages, piracy.

Quite honestly, that's the stupidest point I've ever seen. You'd spend more on printer ink and paper than you would just buying more storage media. Not to mention you are actually HELPING my case, since you'd need to have someone to PUT all that paper. Either way, again, most people aren't going to spend money to store things that they're unlikely to use again; those things are far more likely to be deleted than backed up.

No. A library allows you to use a piece of media for free. It's incredibly easy for you to copy it before you return it, and thus have a permanent copy. P2P allows you to use a piece of media for free. It's incredibly easy for you to not delete it, and thus have a permanent copy.

Even if it were possible, somehow, to keep people from copying library media, it is not the media itself which is valuable. It is the content inside it. The media itself (be it a plastic CD, or ink and paper) is very nearly worthless. Most people, for most media, only need to see it once or twice; be it a movie, TV show, book, or so on. If they need to see it again, all they would need to do would be to go back to the library.

Now you're just arguing semantics.

With a Library, you can not own the media in question (and don't spout back that 'once you read it you own it!' crap) unless you illegally copy it yourself...or flat out steal it. A library does not support nor encourage piracey in anyway, they support the free exchange of information without unlicensed mass production of content. But Torrents and P2P stuff *is* the unlicensed mass production of content. Saying a library supports piracy because it has a photocopier is like saying you support piracy by owning a computer.

And most people who download a torrent of a movie or book or whatever don't just delete it after using it once, they keep them to watch/read/listen to/use again and again. People who torrent movies then burn them to a CD or who download music to put into an MP3 player aren't going to just delete the file after one use, and to suggest that is reaching for the tiniest of straws in a straw man argument.

How many people do you know download a song, listen to it once, and regardless of whether they like it or not, delete said song?

My beef has always been this. How can you blame P2P people for loss of revenue when allot of people go on Itunes and buy 1 song for 99cents instead of going to a mall and buying the whole cd for 9-20 dollars.

Personally, I don't. But the big record companies do. Whether it's a cd sold for 20 bucks or a single song sold for 99 cents, at least 80% of those profits go to the companies. Because of this, every free song downloaded is a hit to the record companies far more so then it is to the bands themselves. And while I'm not a big fan of downloading music (i'm wierd in that I still like CDs) I do applaud those bands who promote themselves by offering their music free of charge to those who want to download it(Like NiN's newest album, The Slip).

The Library to me is the same as NEtflix. Both are harmful to their respected industries. With the library I just check out aa book I need with information or illustrations for my animation projects and I just come home and scan them to my system and take the book back. No having to go to borders to buy anything.

Niether of these hurt their respective industries all that much as if people like what they saw/read/watched they're likely to track down a copy of their own to keep. I mean the radio gives away free music 24/7 but they're not hurting anyone in the industry, infact that's where most bands make it big.

Of course there is! It's called a college ID card. If you have one, you're a filthy copying thief. Or incredibly rich, in which case I'd like to discuss getting a loan from you. My last semester of grad school used about 50-60 books for 4 classes. You'd better believe I used the copiers for that. I used the ones right in the library next to the stairs on every floor, too.

Did you copy the entire text books back to front, cover to cover? If not then you still didn't break any "laws".

[Kitalrez]

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

Did you copy the entire text books back to front, cover to cover? If not then you still didn't break any "laws".

Yes, actually I did. I think I managed to get all of "Borderlands: La Frontera" right down to the "Property of Marriott Library" stamp on the 2nd page. At the time, the copy rate was actually cheaper than buying the whole book.

[Feba]

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

With a Library, you can not own the media in question

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

(and don't spout back that 'once you read it you own it!' crap)

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

A library does not support nor encourage piracey in anyway

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.

And most people who download a torrent of a movie or book or whatever don't just delete it after using it once,

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.

How many people do you know download a song, listen to it once, and regardless of whether they like it or not, delete said song?

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.

I mean the radio gives away free music 24/7

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.

If not then you still didn't break any "laws".

ugh, fair use is not "kekekekeke I didn't copy the fifth page in the appendix so you can't touch me". Quite possibly it was fair use as scholarship/research materials, but seriously, it could very well be a copyright violation.