3 ms·

I think you're looking at it differently than Falkvinge (granted, he may be willfully contorting his perspective to whatever fits his argument.) Wikipedia says

I think you're looking at it differently than Falkvinge (granted, he may be willfully contorting his perspective to whatever fits his argument.) Wikipedia says about the Libraries Act[1], "The Capitalist economic model had created shift patterns which left workers with free time[...] Campaigners felt that encouraging the lower classes to spend their free time on morally uplifting activities, such as reading, would promote greater social good." A committee reported, "the first step taken by a foreign writer was to consult a public library on the subject of his studies or composition; we find that no such auxiliary was at the service of the British intellect." So, the supposed reason (for the British, at least), was for the public good and intellect. The first sale doctrine is a legal defense, which is not the same as a reason public libraries should exist or why they are good. This may be somewhat muddied by his use of "defend" everywhere, rather than something else. Anyway, I think he has a decent point, that libraries were last century's big threat to IP holders (would have liked to see some citations on the controversy though), the government decided a public good would be served with a smallish sacrifice from the industry, and that filesharing is a similar but much more efficient execution of that public service (but at perhaps too big of a cost to the IP holders.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Libraries_Act_1850 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Libraries_Act_1850

mikeash 11y ago
Well yes, I'm looking at it differently, that's my whole point. The article is saying that if you defend one you must defend the other. My point is that if you look at things from a different perspective then it's quite easy to defend one without defending the other. It's all about whether you look at libraries as an exception to copyright which has been carved out for the public good, or whether you look at libraries as something that is naturally allowed within copyright. Put it another way: the article argues on the basis of a library's purpose. I'm ignoring that, and merely looking at a library's right to exist. If you see the purpose coming first, and the right to exist being created on the basis of that purpose, then the argument in the article holds. If you see the right to exist coming first, and the purpose merely being why people take advantage of that right, then you get my position. Maybe this is one of those American versus European things. It looks from my cursory examination (and I could easily be wrong, and welcome a more informed opinion from anyone who knows better) that the doctrine of first sale is an American thing, and European laws give more rights to the copyright holder.
- scintill76 11y ago
  Yeah, it does seem Europeans have more copyright rights, as others in the thread are citing copyright-based royalties that libraries have to pay (which kind of undermines his argument too.) I don't really know how the history/law worked, but at least the way he claims, "they made explicit exceptions to the copyright monopoly for the benefit of public access to culture and knowledge." I guess in America a special exception is not really needed. I think we're on the same page about the difference.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    And just to be clear, I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with the idea that libraries serve a special purpose that should be enshrined in law, and that this then implies something about file sharing. I just don't think it's a position one necessarily must have, so the premise of the article is wrong because of that.

mikeash 11y ago

Well yes, I'm looking at it differently, that's my whole point. The article is saying that if you defend one you must defend the other. My point is that if you look at things from a different perspective then it's quite easy to defend one without defending the other. It's all about whether you look at libraries as an exception to copyright which has been carved out for the public good, or whether you look at libraries as something that is naturally allowed within copyright. Put it another way: the article argues on the basis of a library's purpose. I'm ignoring that, and merely looking at a library's right to exist. If you see the purpose coming first, and the right to exist being created on the basis of that purpose, then the argument in the article holds. If you see the right to exist coming first, and the purpose merely being why people take advantage of that right, then you get my position. Maybe this is one of those American versus European things. It looks from my cursory examination (and I could easily be wrong, and welcome a more informed opinion from anyone who knows better) that the doctrine of first sale is an American thing, and European laws give more rights to the copyright holder.

scintill76 11y ago
Yeah, it does seem Europeans have more copyright rights, as others in the thread are citing copyright-based royalties that libraries have to pay (which kind of undermines his argument too.) I don't really know how the history/law worked, but at least the way he claims, "they made explicit exceptions to the copyright monopoly for the benefit of public access to culture and knowledge." I guess in America a special exception is not really needed. I think we're on the same page about the difference.
- mikeash 11y ago
  And just to be clear, I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with the idea that libraries serve a special purpose that should be enshrined in law, and that this then implies something about file sharing. I just don't think it's a position one necessarily must have, so the premise of the article is wrong because of that.