4 ms·

Going to a library and getting a free copy is exactly what people are doing. The library is online, freely accessible without discrimination. Since when have w

Going to a library and getting a free copy is exactly what people are doing. The library is online, freely accessible without discrimination. Since when have we asked authors permission to add their book to a library? In many places (including the US) if you publish a book it is mandatory to submit it to a library.

coliveira 11y ago
I have never seen an illegal library, have you? Don't try to confuse a respectable institution with pirate web sites that didn't ask permission to anyone to do their illegal thing.
- amatic 11y ago
  What is the difference, asside from someone deeming copying 'illegal'?
  - coliveira 11y ago
    There is nothing illegal about copying per se, as long as there are no provisions against it. This is a basic principle of human society. For example, there is nothing illegal about walking without shoes, as long as there is no regulation preventing it as it's the case at some government offices. Your reasoning is just trying to throw away our society principles to justify your behavior. My main contention is not that we shouldn't have free information, but that it is unethical to disregard existing laws just because you don't like them.
    - amatic 11y ago
      There is nothing unethical in braking the law. It is illegal to disregard existing laws, ethics is a different matter. There were many racist, sexist, oppressing laws in the past that we consider unethical today, and may even celebrate people who broke those unethical laws in protest to authorities and 'the society'.
      - coliveira 11y ago
        True, there are situations where breaking the law is the ethical thing to do. However, you are trying to put access to a copyrighted book at the same level as fighting against sexism and racial oppression. Unless you can show that these situations are closely comparable (little clue: they're not), you're just creating an excuse to avoid following laws that don't benefit yourself.
        amatic 11y ago
        In the case of copyrighted books or research papers, it could be a matter of life and death for the user, if we are talking about access to various types of medical research, for example.
        coliveira 11y ago
        Research papers in medicine are written for specialists, who already have access to them by means of employment. I don't know how access to that literature can save lives otherwise. Even if that was the case, it is a very far fetched way to prove that you need generalized civil disobedience with regard to copyright law.
        amatic 11y ago
        In a lot of countries in the world, medical institutions or individuals don't have enough money to pay for access to research and books (lib-gen, the sister project of sci-hub also serves pirated books). And I agree, that might not be a proof we need civil disobedience in general (with regard to copyright law), but I think it does show that copyright law doesn't work well for medical research. I think similar could be proved for other areas covered by copyright law, but that would be a long discussion.
krapp 11y ago
>Since when have we asked authors permission to add their book to a library? As far as I know, libraries in the US purchase their materials like anyone else. They have the right to lend due to the Doctrine of First Sale[1], because what they lend they legally own. >In many places (including the US) if you publish a book it is mandatory to submit it to a library. According to Wikipedia, in the US publishers are required to submit two copies of a published work to the Library of Congress[0], not to distribute copies to public libraries. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_deposit#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_deposit#United_States [1]http://www.ala.org/advocacy/copyright/copyrightarticle/librariescreatures http://www.ala.org/advocacy/copyright/copyrightarticle/libra...

coliveira 11y ago

I have never seen an illegal library, have you? Don't try to confuse a respectable institution with pirate web sites that didn't ask permission to anyone to do their illegal thing.

amatic 11y ago
What is the difference, asside from someone deeming copying 'illegal'?
- coliveira 11y ago
  There is nothing illegal about copying per se, as long as there are no provisions against it. This is a basic principle of human society. For example, there is nothing illegal about walking without shoes, as long as there is no regulation preventing it as it's the case at some government offices. Your reasoning is just trying to throw away our society principles to justify your behavior. My main contention is not that we shouldn't have free information, but that it is unethical to disregard existing laws just because you don't like them.
  - amatic 11y ago
    There is nothing unethical in braking the law. It is illegal to disregard existing laws, ethics is a different matter. There were many racist, sexist, oppressing laws in the past that we consider unethical today, and may even celebrate people who broke those unethical laws in protest to authorities and 'the society'.
    - coliveira 11y ago
      True, there are situations where breaking the law is the ethical thing to do. However, you are trying to put access to a copyrighted book at the same level as fighting against sexism and racial oppression. Unless you can show that these situations are closely comparable (little clue: they're not), you're just creating an excuse to avoid following laws that don't benefit yourself.
      - amatic 11y ago
        In the case of copyrighted books or research papers, it could be a matter of life and death for the user, if we are talking about access to various types of medical research, for example.
        coliveira 11y ago
        Research papers in medicine are written for specialists, who already have access to them by means of employment. I don't know how access to that literature can save lives otherwise. Even if that was the case, it is a very far fetched way to prove that you need generalized civil disobedience with regard to copyright law.
        amatic 11y ago
        In a lot of countries in the world, medical institutions or individuals don't have enough money to pay for access to research and books (lib-gen, the sister project of sci-hub also serves pirated books). And I agree, that might not be a proof we need civil disobedience in general (with regard to copyright law), but I think it does show that copyright law doesn't work well for medical research. I think similar could be proved for other areas covered by copyright law, but that would be a long discussion.

krapp 11y ago

>Since when have we asked authors permission to add their book to a library? As far as I know, libraries in the US purchase their materials like anyone else. They have the right to lend due to the Doctrine of First Sale[1], because what they lend they legally own. >In many places (including the US) if you publish a book it is mandatory to submit it to a library. According to Wikipedia, in the US publishers are required to submit two copies of a published work to the Library of Congress[0], not to distribute copies to public libraries. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_deposit#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_deposit#United_States [1]http://www.ala.org/advocacy/copyright/copyrightarticle/librariescreatures http://www.ala.org/advocacy/copyright/copyrightarticle/libra...