Theft

[threemonkeys]

It is Monday morning. In fact, here it is the Monday morning after daylight saving kicks in. Everything is running a bit slowly. Caffeine does not seem to do the trick.

So how about something to make the blood boil. Have a read of this article by Brian Edwards in which he argues that public libraries are a form of theft.

Before you ask, yes he is serious. Are you awake now?

Comments

[callie]

Classic example of someone who starts from a perfectly reasonable position (the authors fund provides inadequate compensation) and throws in some shock words to make people sit up. And doesn't do himself any favours in the process.

[threemonkeys]

FWIW, this isn't the first time he has advanced the libraries are theft proposition. I remember him ranting about it years ago when he used to do the Saturday morning radio show that Kim Hill does these days.

[factioncat]

He makes one good point - libraries aren't really any different from illegal downloads from the internet. Of course, we draw very different conclusions from that 8) He also seems a bit confused on whether authors should be paid based on how much work they put in or on how many people read their work...

[threemonkeys]

I'd have thought that illegal downloads were more akin to somebody photocopying or scanning the book to make multiple copies to sell or give away. Libraries do buy the books they lend and don't propagate additional copies. What they do is make much more efficient use of a book purchase than an individual buyer.

[factioncat]

People who upload files usually bought the original (or obtained it from a legal broadcast), and the downloaded copies are often discarded after consumption rather than kept indefinitely. Is there really that much difference between serial and parallel lending, when the technology makes parallel possible? Selling copies is another matter.

[threemonkeys]

I guess I'm not in a good position to argue, given my attitude towards downloads.