[Murphie]

Originally Posted by Feba

I have no problem admitting I'm wrong, when I actually am.


Anyway, I'll answer any valid replies to the thread, but there's no point answering flamebait and answers that are just plain stupid. If someone has a good point to make, I'd be happy to discuss it.

Typical.

[Ziero]

Originally Posted by little ninja

Checking out a new release book just means I don't have to buy it now. P2P a cd just means I don't have to buy it as well. Both equal the same thing at the end. I don't have to waste money on it if I don't like it or will never use again.

Yes, but the difference is, you return the book, but you don't return the P2P'd CD.

And thus the answer to the original OP.

Not everyone, But I personalyl don't want to waste hard earned money on a piece of garbage. Why spend 20 bucks on a cd for 1-2 good songs, and 10-12 shitty songs. same could be said for movies and Games. Why go pay 60 bucks for Heavenly Sword when its only 6 hours long and not much for replay level (my own OP).

Companies can blame P2P for their troubles. But lets face it everything and everyone is guilty in crippling it. PEople who buy 1 song on Itunes for a dollar instead of a 20 dollar cd. The kids who rent games instead of paying 60 bucks for it. The parents who rent movies on movie night instead of buying it. The radio stations for over playing songs. The record companies for finding a fresh new sound and then flooding the market with a thousand copy cats.

Vhs > Vhs: Cassette > Radio: Cassette > Cassette: Cd > Cassette, Cd > Cd: Dvd > Dvd. Pirating has been around a very long time.

And this, well this has pretty much nothing to do with the topic at hand. I don't think anyone is arguing the logistics of Rental or P2P use, or the existence and rampant use of piracy. I know I'm not going argue about using either of those things. The debate here is the difference between using a library and using PSP services. And that difference is, once again, that P2P services rely on illegally copying and distributing media and libraries allow patrons to share limited, but legally obtained media.

Now if this entire topic is just some abstract attempt to try and convinve people that P2P is actually good because it allows the free exchange of information similar to a library, then that means he just doesn't comprehend...or care...why people see P2P as "bad" in the first place.

[Empedocles]

This thread and other things I have read on the internet, and newspapers plus seen on television (Mainly during idle time) has convinced me that a hypothesis that I have been pondering is correct: Technology is advancing faster than society.

I don't know about P2P because I'm not interested in downloading media, but I read a lot of books that my father buys. Sometimes he gets a book from the library, enjoys it, then goes and hunts down the book in used book stores to purchase.

imo, I don't see downloading content onto your PC having the same effect, rather the opposite.

Plus, Libraries make you go out into the fresh(?) air!

[Murphie]

Most librarians above the level of library assistant have the same education that a "head" librarian would have, so they were just as qualified to answer the question.

Thank you for pointing out, however, that it is really isn't at all the same thing.

From what I've seen in my own library, and in my own research of librarianship, most patrons are still hesitant to embrace digital media wholesale. Unless they can print it out, which kind of defeats the purpose (and is incredibly wasteful/expensive). I'm sure this will change with time, but for now, the physical media is still king in the library (which means you have to give it back at some point).

[TheGrandMom]

I read a LOT of ebooks. I prefer not having a crapload of books to get rid of. The local libraries are quite picky about taking in books....even if they use them at the book sale. I use a Sony PRS-505 for my ebooks and it was the best purchase I ever made. I had a PRS-500 and then bought a Kindle when it came out but returned it. To me there is nothing better than having hundreds of books, mp3's, pictures in one fairly small portable device when I need to travel for business. Digital is the way to go imo.

[Balfree]

May I just say that whoever scans a whole book into their computer isnt taking into consideration how long it takes to do it, plus the energy it takes for a scanner to run that long, and the tedious task of having to do it by hand means you cant let it scan for itself you have to manualy change the page every time...

Time is money, unless you're worth a peanut. Are you scanning library books, peanut boy? (retorical question)

[Balfree]

Such hardware/software probably costs some cash.

You can get books pretty cheaply these days ;p

... screw books, the Internet has pretty much everything you need.

What was the conversation about again? The difference between Libraries and File sharing over the Internet right? Libraries are hardly free, like Feba said taxpayers cover the expenses, even if they don't use libraries, profitable business that. Nothing's stopping you from copying a book you rented on a library, the biggest difference here is that you probably can't get certain things on a library that you can get online, like games/software, and certainly not in the same ammounts. That's the difference.

Taxpayers pay for a library who then probably pay their own taxes for displaying their stuff. File sharing pay nothing more than the hosting they require.

If we were to judge things this way... whats stopping anyone from buying a book and then making copies of it? or games, movies, music...? Why even bother with this discussion? The differences are irrelevant, might as well compare every method of displaying/sharing information because all of them allow for exploitation of some kind.

My english was taking a dump while I wrote this.

[Feba]

Originally Posted by Ziero

The debate here is the difference between using a library and using P2P services.

ftfy, and yes.

Originally Posted by StarvingArtist

It is a legal distinction. I'm not going to argue the moral differences.

Which was more the point. Legal distinctions are irrelevant-- it would just turn into a debate about cannabis and alcohol. "well, the law says it's ok, so it is", without any substance.

Originally Posted by TheGrandMom

Digital is the way to go imo.

Off topic slightly, but yes, and this is another reason why this is going to cause a problem in the future-- it can just be a PITA to keep track of. Take, for example, a family computer. If you have just three people sharing a computer, that's easily three different copies of any given piece of media (movie, book, music) whenever one of them decides to update their portable device or such. Hell, I have two copies of plenty of music files-- stuff on my computer, which can be labeled with foreign language encodings (such as Japanese), and stuff on my mp3 player which needs to be kept to english. If I took some of my CDs, put them on my computer, and then on my mp3 player, I'd have three separate copies, and that's just for one person.

Originally Posted by Balfree

... screw books, the Internet has pretty much everything you need.

yes-- this is another thing; quite honestly, you can find almost anything you'd pay money for available freely on the internet. Music, tons of artists and even labels out there giving it away (even some fairly major acts, like NIN). Games, plenty of free software out there, not to mention freeware (and again, major companies, like id's Wolfenstein: ET, F.E.A.R., as well as tons of free MMOs). Movies and TV, there's Hulu and projects like it, not to mention Youtube. And don't get me started on all the freely available fiction.

The internet is very much creating a new breed of media. All it really needs to take off is organization-- there is so much free music out there that it's not funny, but sorting it all out, indexing it by artist, album, genre, year; making sure the information is accurate; and weeding out all the illegal stuff? That's a huge effort; even Wikipedia's workforce would have a hard time sorting through all the music, games, etc. out there.

Originally Posted by Balfree

the biggest difference here is that you probably can't get certain things on a library that you can get online, like games/software, and certainly not in the same ammounts. That's the difference.

Actually, my local library has software and games. Of course, it's nothing amazing (except a few Rosetta Stone titles), but it's there. The weird thing is that most of them are probably 'install once and then return the disk" things, so I have to wonder how they can be legal. I've also seen a library with a fairly large collection of music, audiobooks, and the like.

Neither of them had any limit on how much you could check out, but I remember also encountering some fairly harsh limits (like, three or four things at a time)

[Murphie]

Originally Posted by TheGrandMom

I read a LOT of ebooks. I prefer not having a crapload of books to get rid of. The local libraries are quite picky about taking in books....even if they use them at the book sale. I use a Sony PRS-505 for my ebooks and it was the best purchase I ever made. I had a PRS-500 and then bought a Kindle when it came out but returned it. To me there is nothing better than having hundreds of books, mp3's, pictures in one fairly small portable device when I need to travel for business. Digital is the way to go imo.

(Not that you didn't already know this, but) you're not the average library patron. The majority still feel more comfortable with physical media. Some people have eye strain issues, some people simply prefer to leave the machines behind from time to time. As I said above, I'm sure that will change eventually, but as for right now...

[Murphie]

There is a lot of information available in a library that you can't find online. The Internet is like a really really wide, but shallow river of information.

[Feba]

Originally Posted by StarvingArtist

Who gave you permission to copy from a torrent?

Now this is a decent argument-- the fact that authors consent to libraries. I honestly cannot think of a decent reply to that. The best I can think of is 'artists are stupid'.

Originally Posted by StarvingArtist

I can't download a kotatsu.

I meant, mediawise.

Originally Posted by StarvingArtist

Try as I might, I can't find a digital copy of this bookthis book .

I meant, free stuff. Not copies of restricted media; free stuff-- like Wikipedia, for example (although, more specifically, complete works; although I'm not sure of any examples of that that are very popular. You know djplaeskool, though; his Music, for one). Like, you can find free rock and roll out there you'll like. It might not be your favorite artist and songs, but there's something else good out there that's being distributed for free.

Originally Posted by Murphie

The Internet is like a really really wide, but shallow river of information.

That depends on where you're looking. If you're looking for indepth information on some obscure geographic phenomenon, you might have better luck in a library-- if you're looking for information on Star Trek, you'd probably have better luck online. I'd say it's more like libraries are like an aquarium-- it's got a good amount of what you want to see, and in an easy to see format. The internet is like an ocean-- there's a ton of crap out there you've never heard of, stuff you just don't want to see, and your best bet is still a hugely broad area to fish around in. There's also some really deep parts you just can't get to (dead, password protected, and the like). You might also run into the occasional thing you Just Don't Want To See. Still, it's hard to say one is better than the other-- you're probably not going to find an incredibly obscure species in an aquarium; but you're also probably not going to find out much about the anatomy of a fish by looking at it in the ocean.

[TheGrandMom]

Originally Posted by StarvingArtist

Digital media is only available as long as someone provides it. 99.99% of a torrent is useless if there is no one with the full source. seed plz!

Amen!