[jbob2000]

You didn't read the article. His point is that the purpose of a library is knowledge-sharing (and to your point, the expense of a library is for the greater good of knowledge-sharing). Since the purpose of file-sharing is knowledge-sharing, then they are similar in nature.

[nwatson]

A "real-world" library's goal of knowledge-sharing is balanced with the need of the content-provider to make some money to support distribution and authoring of books. The public pays taxes to fund libraries so that people who can't afford to buy (or choose to not buy) particular books can still access them. There's a natural brake on distribution in that each copy can be checked out to at most one library patron at a time.

The most direct analogy carried over to the electronic space is e-book lending systems with built-in DRM. These systems usually keep the N-number-of-copies-available-for-loan restriction in place. Unlimited file-sharing does not at all resemble the balance between the-good-of-public-knowledge vs the-right-and-need-for-publishers-and-authors-to-make-money that a physical library model provides.

[jbob2000]

I would argue that the "need for publishers and authors to make money" is where the issue lies, not in the means of knowledge transfer (libraries vs. file sharing).

Just like how governments subsidize libraries, so too should they subsidize file sharing.

[librvf]

Well, I read the article, and the author's point about a library being for knowledge-sharing is misleading and possibly even dishonest. It's over-emphasized and ignores other important realities about how and why a library works the way it does.

[jbob2000]

I wouldn't say it ignores, more that he's making a supposition (an implied one). He supposes that if libraries had no expenses, no physicality, and nobody had to get paid, it would resemble file-sharing.

[superdude]

The #1 purpose of file sharing is not knowledge sharing, it's entertainment sharing.

[jbob2000]

You don't read fiction? Libraries have massive kids sections, I doubt they're reading Applied Chemistry.

[superdude]

I'm responding to your specific argument that this is all about knowledge-sharing when it's not.

[jbob2000]

I am equating "knowledge" and "entertainment" and not making a judgement on what constitutes entertainment. If it can be known, then it is knowledge, regardless of whether or not it is fiction. So by that definition, it is all about knowledge-sharing.