4 ms·
Do you think that peer to peer filesharing communities are not also funded and maintained by the community that uses it? I contend that this is exactly the cas
by dublinben 11y ago
Do you think that peer to peer filesharing communities are not also funded and maintained by the community that uses it? I contend that this is exactly the case.
There must also be an original legitimate customer of the work being shared, so the publisher is still getting paid.
The difference does only lie in efficiency. In a world of ever-increasing efficiency, why do we shackle libraries to 20th Century levels of service?
- krapp 11y agoLibraries legitimately own every copy they distribute. If they lend 10 copies of a book, 10 copies were paid for. They don't pay for one then Xerox 9 more. File sharing exists explicitly to deny publishers payment for anything they distribute. 10,000 copies results in no compensation beyond the original.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- librvf 11y agoWe're not using the same definition of community. A community that shares a public library is a community that shares a very broad range of common customs, traditions, values, and interests. They are literal neighbors. They have a shared interest in the success of the community along multiple economic, social, and cultural dimensions. "Knowledge for the common good" is a value, but pursuit of that value conflicts with other things the community also values. Resolution of all those conflicts provides natural checks and balances. The only common interest of the "file sharing community" is sharing files, and any political or technical issues that happen to be directly related to sharing files. The virtual community can grow and expand infinitely based on only that one dimension. There are no natural checks and balances the way there would be for a real community. Instead of resolving conflicts, anyone who doesn't share that one primary value is not part of the community.