Public Libraries Show Why Sharing Culture Should Never Have Been Banned in the First

[ctg]

You’ll have a hard time finding a copyright monopoly maximalist who insists that public libraries should be banned. This would be political suicide; instead, they typically tell lies about why it’s not the same thing as online sharing. Let’s have a look.


A concept that’s becoming increasingly useful is “Analog Equivalent Rights.” Culture and knowledge should be just as available in the digital space, as it is in the analog space. We should enjoy exactly the same privacy rights and civil liberties online, as we do offline. The concept is completely reasonable, and nowhere near rocket science. This is a tremendously useful concept, as it makes lawmakers and others reflect on the liberties they are killing off for their children, sometimes followed by a mental shock as they realize what has been going on with their silent approval. Let’s have a look at how this applies to public libraries.


When you are challenging a copyright industry lobbyist over the concept of public libraries, and ask them if they are opposed to people having access to such culture and knowledge without paying, they are smart enough to not deride public libraries – as this would weaken their political position considerably. However, online sharing of culture and knowledge is the Analog Equivalent Right to the public libraries we’ve had for 150 years.



Lobbyists will sometimes try to change the subject around this, or more commonly, lie using one of three myths. Here are those myths and lies, and why they are untrue:


Lobbyist lie: The library buys all its books. Therefore, it’s not comparable with online sharing of culture.

Fact: Laws in most countries say that for every, every, book published, the publisher must send a number of copies of that book to certain large libraries at their own cost, to be available without charge for reading by the public.

Read more: Public Libraries Show Why Sharing Culture Should Never Have Been Banned in the First Place | TorrentFreak

 

[MattC]

Re: Public Libraries Show Why Sharing Culture Should Never Have Been Banned in the Fi

Read more: Public Libraries Show Why Sharing Culture Should Never Have Been Banned in the First Place | TorrentFreak

Sorry, but I don't agree with the argument. This conveniently ignores PLR payments which authors get every time a book is borrowed. Pirates and their torrent sites think its okay that the author and publisher never get paid when their books are shared, but hey the site owners can earn hundreds and thousands of pounds on fees and adverts, can't they? There is no justification for the current torrent model as far as I can see.

 

[HareBrain]

Re: Public Libraries Show Why Sharing Culture Should Never Have Been Banned in the Fi

Lobbyist lie: The library buys all its books. Therefore, it’s not comparable with online sharing of culture.

Fact: Laws in most countries say that for every, every, book published, the publisher must send a number of copies of that book to certain large libraries at their own cost, to be available without charge for reading by the public.

Hm. In the UK, as far as I know, the publisher has to send one copy to the British Library. So, there is one copy, held in London, that everyone has a right to look at. Anyone who thinks this is the equivalent to that book being available to the whole online population for nothing has a strange sense of reality.

 

[Ursa major]

Re: Public Libraries Show Why Sharing Culture Should Never Have Been Banned in the Fi

The position in the UK is:

The Legal Deposit Libraries Act 2003 restates Section 15 of the Copyright Act 1911, that one copy of every book (which includes pamphlets, magazines and newspapers) published there must be sent to the British Library; five other libraries (the Bodleian Library at the University of Oxford, Cambridge University Library, the National Library of Scotland, the library of the Trinity College, Dublin and the National Library of Wales) are entitled to request a free copy within one year of publication. This legislation was updated with the introduction of The Legal Deposit Libraries (Non-Print Works) Regulations 2013, which make provision for the legal deposit of works published online or offline in formats other than print.

As for libraries being equivalent to parasite websites... Ludicrous. (But then you'd expect that in an argument from a site called torrentfreak, wouldn't you?)

 

[jastius]

Re: Public Libraries Show Why Sharing Culture Should Never Have Been Banned in the Fi

would this all be solved then if the torrents paid the borrowing royalty remuneration fees that the libraries do? As you have suggested, from the advertising subsidies.

As for movies, could we backtrack borrowing from a torrent to our cable television fees that we already pay to watch the same movies?

 

[ibrooks]

Re: Public Libraries Show Why Sharing Culture Should Never Have Been Banned in the Fi

Personally I think the digital industry shot itself in the foot with their prices. It was obvious that their stuff was going to be easier and easier to copy illegally. Prices however just went up and up. I know I could copy a CD full of music or a DVD of a film for pence - and that includes a fairly good quality sleeve should I so desire. I know that the economies of scale make that even cheaper so I know that the CD or DVD that I buy has actually cost the original producer pennies - so how come I have to spend £10 on a cheap one and £20 on a big new release? Bearing in mind that for films I've also seen in the news that it has already taken umpty billion dollars through cinema showings?

I know there are costs involved in producing the original songs/films/whatever but the profit margins are simply telephone numbers and the wages of the big stars are similar. Assuming an album took someone 2 years to write and record or a film took two years to make does anyone really believe that the big names spent 40 hours a week for two whole years doing that? No - neither do I. So why are they often being paid more money than most of us will make in our entire working lives for that one job?

If they had pulled their wages back into the real world and sold new films/albums at a couple of quid a throw the pirate industry would never have appeared. They would still have been able to pay the top artists 6 figure fees (as opposed to 8) they would likely have sold enough extra legitimate copies of their media to make up the shortfall in price.

The old adage of "if you don't agree with the price then don't buy it" simply didn't work because there was an alternative which people took advantage of - massively.

Don't get me wrong - I don't agree with pirating films, music or any other artists' work but I think that the massive "industry" that has grown up around doing just that is a beast of their own making so I've little sympathy.

They still have the option of dropping their prices to the point where it's not worth getting a dodgy copy of something because a legit one is only a few pence more expensive but it's going to be a lot harder to make it have an effect now when so much development has gone into making the illegal content so easy to access for so many people.

Iain

 

[MattC]

Re: Public Libraries Show Why Sharing Culture Should Never Have Been Banned in the Fi

would this all be solved then if the torrents paid the borrowing royalty remuneration fees that the libraries do? As you have suggested, from the advertising subsidies.

As for movies, could we backtrack borrowing from a torrent to our cable television fees that we already pay to watch the same movies?

It would be a start. But they won't - it goes against the pirate philosophy!

 

[MattC]

Re: Public Libraries Show Why Sharing Culture Should Never Have Been Banned in the Fi

I know there are costs involved in producing the original songs/films/whatever but the profit margins are simply telephone numbers and the wages of the big stars are similar. Assuming an album took someone 2 years to write and record or a film took two years to make does anyone really believe that the big names spent 40 hours a week for two whole years doing that? No - neither do I. So why are they often being paid more money than most of us will make in our entire working lives for that one job?

Iain

While I'd be the first one to agree that the price of new movies and books are vastly overpriced, I disagree with the argument quoted above. Piracy covers all media, big or small, so indie stuff also loses out, those not so big-names. Also, you forget how hard most of these artists have worked to get into their chosen field, often taking years and years, doing basic jobs to get by so they can concentrate on their art.
There is a value applied to art, and it's that value that is forever debated when they talk about book prices. Prices may be too high in places; ebooks are starting to correct this. As will streaming movies and removing those physical costs. Obviously there is an alternative as old as civilisation itself - if you don't want to pay for something, you can always steal it.

 

[mosaix]

Re: Public Libraries Show Why Sharing Culture Should Never Have Been Banned in the Fi

Obviously there is an alternative as old as civilisation itself - if you don't want to pay for something, you can always steal it.

Good post, Matt.

Why anyone would think that just because they judge the price is too high gives them the right to steal it is beyond me. And if that was really the reason then perhaps they would donate what they think is a reasonable price to the artiste anonymously* instead of paying precisely nothing - like that's going to happen. These people shouldn't waste their breath trying to justify their dishonest actions - they're just common thieves, it's as simple as that.

*Not that I think anyone other than the artiste and their publisher has the right to decide the price - reasonable or otherwise.

 

[psychotick]

Re: Public Libraries Show Why Sharing Culture Should Never Have Been Banned in the Fi

Hi,

Libraries are community organisations there to serve a community need and paid for by communities by rates. They serve a need. They pay for the books they have and then authors get a small return when the book is borrowed. How in any way does this compare to some selfish **** simply stealing your book and giving it away to anyone and everyone while making money from advertising etc.

Theft is theft.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[TheDustyZebra]

Re: Public Libraries Show Why Sharing Culture Should Never Have Been Banned in the Fi

I do like the point that the "single-copy lending" is a physical limitation, not necessarily needing to be a legal one. They've translated that into digital lending already, and it's just silly. I've seen, in one of our local libraries with e-book lending, the regulation that the library can only lend the digital book something like 17 times, because that was decided to be the average life of a physical book. Then they have to buy a new copy.

That's like if they decided that, because the videotape wore out after ten viewings, the DVD must be scrapped after ten as well, even if it's not all scratched up yet. Or, taking it back a generation in book lending, the papyrus scrolls were only good for (say) five uses, so these newfangled books can only be read five times and then must be thrown away. Or the old cars could only go 30 mph, so we can't go any faster in the new ones.

The point of newer and better technology is (supposed to be) that it is *ahem* better. Lasts longer. Can make the same material available to more people, at lesser or equal cost. If we have to harness each new idea with the old one's limitations, what's the point?

 

[ibrooks]

Re: Public Libraries Show Why Sharing Culture Should Never Have Been Banned in the Fi

The problem with digital media is that it simply doesn't "feel" like stealing it when you make an illegal copy. You haven't deprived the rightful owner of their property - they still have it. I'm not going to get into the right or wrong debate because I think it's wrong too but it's a case where theft isn't perceived as theft by the thief. So if copying a CD/DVD/MP3 doesn't "feel" wrong, I've got the equipment already in the house and no authority would ever know about it to punish me then what's to stop me?

Stealing something because the price is too high - No not right and I suspect most of the people who copy music, films, ebooks or whatever would agree if asked but the perception isn't that they have stolen it.

As for the smaller independant artists - I quite agree with your comments. Unfortunately they have become the collateral damage - and those people I do have sympathy for. The pirate "industry" was built up around/against the excesses of the big names/companies profiteering. The tools and techniques to steal from the big guys made it just as easy to steal from the little guys and ultimately they all got hit. Right or wrong - they fueled the pirate industry to the point where it became mainstream and accessible to all and even socially acceptable to many.

The value applied to art - is what someone is prepared to pay full stop, there is no debate. If you have the option of paying what you think is an inflated price or of getting it free then it's a bit of a no brainer. As I've said, for the majority of people it's simply not perceived as theft so it comes down simply to the question of "to pay or not to pay?". The only difference most people see is the nice shiny paperwork/sleeve/case.

I think the only way to put the pirates out of business is to make it almost as cheap to get the stuff legitimately and maybe more convenient to account for some additional cost. I think iTunes is a big step in the right direction but still suffers from inflated prices and could be a lot better. I suspect it's biggest obstacle is Apple, if it could be more platform independant and divorced from Apple (both in perception as well as technology) I suspect there would be an even greater takeup than it has now and Apple are hardly strangers to price-fixing when it works to their advantage.

Services like Lovefilm and Netflix might stand a chance at pulling people away from the pirates if they grow in the right direction.

ebooks - I've seen collections available from questionable sources which I assume are dodgy copies of work that should be paid for so I assume that authors of written works are being hit in the same way as the music and film industry. From what I've seen on my Nook and the B&N marketplace I suspect it's just going to be a repeat performance if it isn't already because I refuse to pay £10+ for something I can't even touch. I immediately sort by price and pick from the free selections and then work my way up when I've read anything that grabs my fancy there. I've read some cracking books that I paid sub £1 for. If it starts getting to more than a couple of pounds I tend to look on ebay for second hand copies of the physical book. If I've no option other than to pay the full price of the physical book then I'll buy the book over the ebook every time.

Human nature and the current economic climate is going to make most people get something the cheapest way they can and if that's the pirates then given the above I suspect there is going to be a significant portion of the population that turn in that direction.

Iain

 

[Ursa major]

Re: Public Libraries Show Why Sharing Culture Should Never Have Been Banned in the Fi

I do like the point that the "single-copy lending" is a physical limitation, not necessarily needing to be a legal one. They've translated that into digital lending already, and it's just silly. I've seen, in one of our local libraries with e-book lending, the regulation that the library can only lend the digital book something like 17 times, because that was decided to be the average life of a physical book. Then they have to buy a new copy.

That's like if they decided that, because the videotape wore out after ten viewings, the DVD must be scrapped after ten as well, even if it's not all scratched up yet. Or, taking it back a generation in book lending, the papyrus scrolls were only good for (say) five uses, so these newfangled books can only be read five times and then must be thrown away. Or the old cars could only go 30 mph, so we can't go any faster in the new ones.

The point of newer and better technology is (supposed to be) that it is *ahem* better. Lasts longer. Can make the same material available to more people, at lesser or equal cost. If we have to harness each new idea with the old one's limitations, what's the point?

All they seem** to be doing is attempting to duplicate the economic effect of lending out a physical book. Seventeen appears, to me***, to be far too few for best sellers. (On the other hand, I suppose, authors or publishers could argue that the ebooks lent by the library might be copied - and far more cheaply than would be the case for a physical book - and so they may have factored that into their calulations.)



Do you have the concept of public lending right over in the US? In the UK, each time a book is borrowed, the author may be credited with a small sum****. (The reasons that they may not be given the sum are because authors are limited to a maximum payment of £6600 per annum - once they've reached that, they get no money for extra book borrowings - and no payment is made if the author would have received less than £1 per annum.)




** - I don't think the use of the "average" (I assume they mean "mean") times a book is lent out is correct, particularly when attached the concept of the "life" of a book (which strongly suggests a bit of spin relating to the ruggedness (or fraility) of a volume, else why not say "the average library book is lent out 17 times"): as a lot of books will be lent out far more than this (to balance those that rarely if ever leave the shelf).

*** - I'm guessing: I have no idea how durable a library book is on average.

**** - The latest figure I have, from as far back as 2007, is 5.98 pence per book.

 

[TheDustyZebra]

Re: Public Libraries Show Why Sharing Culture Should Never Have Been Banned in the Fi

I'm not sure if authors get anything for library lendings, or not.

The "average" thing -- the way they said it, it meant that books being taken out tend to fall apart (or be lost?) at around 17 lendings on average. The ones that stay on the shelf never get to that. I don't know where that figure came from -- I have certainly checked out plenty of books with a lot more stampings in them than 17. Many books have multiple sheets in them, where the first one has been stamped full (with due dates when checked out) and another has been added to accommodate more. Heck, there are books that I personally have checked out 17 times, I'm sure! (Although more of those were in my childhood -- I don't think I've been quite that enthusiastic about anything since.)

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Re: Public Libraries Show Why Sharing Culture Should Never Have Been Banned in the Fi

17 does seem like an unrealistically low number. But I agree that it's to the author's (and publisher's) benefit if the library goes out and buys another copy after the book has been checked out a certain number of times.

I don't see how circulating a book by pirating it is at all similar to circulating a book through a public library.

First of all, libraries form a significant part of the market for hardcover books (and probably for trade paperbacks). I wonder how many books by less-than-bestselling writers would ever come out in hardcover without them? It widens the market for a book if it comes out in both hardcover and mass market, because there are some readers who will only buy hardcover and others who can only afford to buy mass market (as well as readers who buy both, depending on the writer).

Secondly, as a taxpayer (and also, alas, as someone who has run up a fair few late fees), I have paid for books I check out from our local libraries, whether hardcover, trade paperback, mass market, or ebook. Sure it's a microscopic percentage of the cost of those books, but then I'm also paying for all the other new books in the library whether I read them or not. And as with TDZ's library, the more times a book is checked out (not 17 here, I know) the more likely the library is to buy more copies, not just because the book is wearing out, but to have more copies available if the book is popular. The library is also more likely to buy the author's next book (possibly in multiple copies, too). So when I check out a book I am encouraging the library to buy more books by that author. If the library does buy more copies, then I've helped to pay for them in that way, too.

If I download a pirated copy of a book, I just encourage the pirates. If the people who download pirated copies don't always realize they are stealing (which strikes me as a case of willful ignorance, because how hard is it to figure out?) then the pirates must certainly know. They may see themselves as Robin Hood type figures, stealing from the rich publishers to give to the starving masses ... yes those poor destitute souls with their multiple electronic devices on which to play pirated music and read pirated books and watch pirated movies. If they are so poor that they can't afford books, CDs and DVDs, then I recommend that they buy a cheap transistor radio, and a library card is usually free. Of course then they would have to drag their poor emaciated bodies to the library ...

And as for the question whether books are over-priced, if you are not looking for the latest book by the most popular writers, many publishers and authors have been releasing books in their backlists for 3.99 or less. Of course one might have to look around a little in order to find those books, but is the reason for buying pirated books really the price, or is it because people are too lazy to acquire reading material by legitimate means?

And since when has "it's too expensive" been a real excuse for stealing anything anyway (except those loaves of bread we need to feed our starving families, of course)? The stores are full of items I would dearly like to have, and which I think are over-priced, but I would never consider stealing them just because the sales clerks might have turned their backs.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Re: Public Libraries Show Why Sharing Culture Should Never Have Been Banned in the Fi

If the people who download pirated copies don't always realize they are stealing (which strikes me as a case of willful ignorance, because how hard is it to figure out?) then the pirates must certainly know. They may see themselves as Robin Hood type figures, stealing from the rich publishers to give to the starving masses ...

I think this 'Robin Hood' thing applies to the tiny minority. Most of them are selfish and lazy - that's certainly the case in music, where pirates have wreaked destruction.

 

[ibrooks]

Re: Public Libraries Show Why Sharing Culture Should Never Have Been Banned in the Fi

I remember buying one of the Harry Potter films in Asda when it was first released and they had it on sale for well under £10 (as did all the other outlets - it wasn't just an Asda gimmick so I assume it was led by the manufacturers). I thought at the time that I would have loved to be able to get some real figures around how many copies were sold and how many were pirated and then compared them to a full price new release. I'd bet good money that they sold more copies than a comparable full price film with the same sort of fanbase and I'd also bet good money that there were less dodgy copies made/downloaded. How much or how little the reduced price affected their profits would be interesting too - I suspect it was favourable because they did it again with the next one (I bought that from Amazon).

I don't think there's any element of Robin Hood in people's minds - it's simply a cheaper source for the same content and that's as far as they think it through. As I've said - make the legitimate sources competitive and convenient and people will increasingly use them and put the pirates out of business.

And where films are concerned get rid of this lunacy where it's released in some countries up to six months before it reaches others. I know I could usually obtain a copy of almost any film from the illegal sources long before it's available to me in any legal form.

Iain

 

[MattC]

Re: Public Libraries Show Why Sharing Culture Should Never Have Been Banned in the Fi

I remember buying one of the Harry Potter films in Asda when it was first released and they had it on sale for well under £10 (as did all the other outlets - it wasn't just an Asda gimmick so I assume it was led by the manufacturers). I thought at the time that I would have loved to be able to get some real figures around how many copies were sold and how many were pirated and then compared them to a full price new release. I'd bet good money that they sold more copies than a comparable full price film with the same sort of fanbase and I'd also bet good money that there were less dodgy copies made/downloaded. How much or how little the reduced price affected their profits would be interesting too - I suspect it was favourable because they did it again with the next one (I bought that from Amazon).

I don't think there's any element of Robin Hood in people's minds - it's simply a cheaper source for the same content and that's as far as they think it through. As I've said - make the legitimate sources competitive and convenient and people will increasingly use them and put the pirates out of business.

And where films are concerned get rid of this lunacy where it's released in some countries up to six months before it reaches others. I know I could usually obtain a copy of almost any film from the illegal sources long before it's available to me in any legal form.

Iain

I don't think there is any real way of being competitive to piracy. One thing is stealing (viewed as being free) while the other you must pay something. Given the choice, people would get that something for free rather than pay anything, so I don't think this is about not being competitive.

I agree, there is a real problem with pricing strategies that is impacting the rise of piracy, worsened by society being more impatient and greedy for the next new thing. They want it now, not six months down the line when it's more affordable. The argument made for that high price is so that money can be reinvested into movies, music, books etc. Not all of it is, granted, and maybe a little too much is given over to the artist, but then if they've earned it, why not? I cannot begrudge JK Rowling or Stephen King everything they've earned (not even Dan Brown). People buy their books because they entertain them, and they've earned that success (which, let's face it, is only about 10-20% of how much actual profit is earned by book sales, so let's not get ahead ourselves - successful authors aren't being greedy, they're being successful).

With piracy, and stealing, there is no negotiation, because you cannot make art free for all. If all art was free, then no one would be doing it for a living. And if no one is doing it for a living, they would all be amateurs. And if they were all amateurs, our lives, culturally, would be so much poorer.
Ultimately, stealing any form of art, kills that art. As Stephen says, it has destroyed the music business, a business that is a pale shadow of itself. It will, inevitably do the same with the film business, and books, unless these idiots are forced to stop.

 

[Montero]

Re: Public Libraries Show Why Sharing Culture Should Never Have Been Banned in the Fi

Cultural acceptability - I think we just have to keep on plugging it that downloading copies that were not made free by the author is theft and all the other arguments made here. I know I've said it before on threads on this topic - it used to be culturally acceptable to drink and drive - now, after long campaigns, attitudes have changed. Some prats still do it, but it is down by a lot.

Starting from the assumption that most piracy is by the younger generation (everyone I've argued with online about it has come across as young) then there may be a lack of input from parents on this. Picturing parents who don't really understand computers and the internet (other than worrying about inappropriate content) and they just don't realise that all the stuff their kids are collecting, or used to collect in their teens (since this has been going on for a while) was in the majority stolen. So you then have the 'smart kid culture' not being moderated by 'dumb parents' and there is a lot of peer feedback for the kids that says how mean the big companies are so it is all just fine.

So, we all have to keep explaining why it is not cool. And put up with aggressive screaming from the minority we infuriate (thinking of unpleasant behaviour on other threads on this type of topic).