@Daosus: The library loan system does not work with digitized data.

This is actually not at all true. My local library and most libraries in my state have now adopted Library2Go, which is a digital books, media library system powered by overdrive. It allows patrons of the library to browse a central database of materials, check them out digitally and consume the content for a certain period of time. It is absolutely arbitrary to set a time limit or copy limit on these resources, but the library does so to protect authors/copyright holders. There does appear to be a fundamental difference between libraries and file-sharing based on limitations. Libraries used to be limited by physical resources (only one person could have a book at a time). These limits transfer just fine to digital resources. File-sharing is more akin to a new distribution system that may or may not replace the previous one (book stores, etc). Amazon and iTunes are examples of legal file-sharing systems as kindle books are copied from central servers again and again, but people have to pay for each copy so both publisher and author are paid. The benefit to the public is this: file-sharing has FORCED, at least the book industry, to drop prices on digital books (.99 – $2.99). The music business has also be completely transformed because of file-sharing.

Illegal file-sharing will never die, just like there was always a minority who copied CDs or tapes. People were recording movies on VHS tapes and creating a personal library and letting people borrow them, making copies for them, long before file-sharing. But what is dramatic is how the file-sharing has sparked a real revolution in entertainment. Granted, the creators and gatekeepers are being drug into a new era kicking and screaming (which is what we see with SOPA and Megaupload being shut down), but they will eventually accept that change is inevitable.

File-sharing has ALWAYS been here and always will be in one form or another. It’s only viewed as “illegal” right now because it’s new and the gatekeepers don’t want their boat to be rocked.

@Daosus: Good point – its not exactly like a library. I’m not saying that file sharing sites ARE libraries. I’m saying they are the next logical progression in the same direction.

When we needed an efficient way of sharing knowledge and cultural goods we established the library system to store and distribute the physical artifacts that store our data.

But we are in a digital age, and ever day we deal with more goods that exist only in digital realm. The library loan system does not work with digitized data. It makes no sense to apply a model based on scarcity of physical media to digital goods that can be effortlessly duplicated.

Therefore file sharing is the logical progression – a new model for sharing and exchanging data. It is not like a library – it is beyond. File sharing does for us what libraries did for our ancestors – it enables us to freely share knowledge and culture free of charge.

Every time someone posts an article about DRM, I’m tempted to link a series of articles by Eric Flint. He’s an alternative history author, by the way. His stuff deals mostly with paper publishing, not digital goods, so it’s particularly relevant here.
http://baens-universe.com/authors/Eric_Flint
The fundamental point he hammers home is that copyright (and as enforcement of that copyright, DRM) is an evil. It’s a necessary one, but it should exist no longer, nor be enforced no harder, than is necessary to fulfill its purpose. That purpose is to pay AUTHORS for their work without imposing limits on their creative expression (like, say, patronage does). Note that it’s not studios or publishing houses, but authors.

I suggest reading the whole thing. It’s very well thought out, although it does get ranty at times. Well worth the couple of hours it takes to read it.

@Square: Yeah, you are right – newest releases don’t surface in libraries that quickly. They could though via donations.

The fact they don’t that’s more to do with the analog distribution method and physical media than with anything else.

I believe you have a well written argument here, but there is one argument that comes to mind.

When it comes to multimedia, a library typically has older media. It’s not as if the newest DVD release is going to be right there for free checkout – you have to go to a movie rental business in order to see that one. After the media has been retired from the popular market, it becomes likely that the sales of the media are shallow enough that the assumed ‘losses’ fall within a margin of error (or something like that). It has been this way at nearly every library I’ve been to.

Don’t get me wrong; I fully support file sharing!

Shh… You’re spoiling my stash of untapped media resources at my local library.

I find that the library is a good place for me to try out full version of games. I didn’t know there were crappy games based on Lost and CSI.

For the Singapore library system, a free account (you immediately have one if you’re a citizen/PR) allows one to borrow 4 books at a time, and only books. One can also pay an annual fee of S$21 for the ability to borrow multimedia items. This paid subscription allows me to borrow 8 items total of books & other multimedia items, like DVDs, audiobooks, PC games, etc. I suspect this goes to paying some sort of fee to appease the copyright gods to allow a product to be in the library.

One thing I would like is for console games to be in the library as well. It’s weird that PC games are there, but not the consoles’.

In a previous article you say “piracy is not theft”. In the same way, filesharing is not like a library.

In a library, there is a physical artifact which the library has legally purchased. The library can only loan out the number of artifacts that they have purchased, and once they have run out there can be no more loaning until those artifacts have been returned.

This is a fundamental difference from piracy. With piracy, there is no physical artifact, and the number of copies available is effectively unlimited.

This looks to me like a broken metaphor, especially in light of the differences, which you yourself highlighted in the earlier post.