What's the difference between kazaa and a library?

[weezergirl]

Why don't authors ever complain about how their books are free to check out at a library instead of people having to BUY THEIR BOOK to read it instead? I know so many people who don't buy books but just go to the library and check it out instead.

What's the difference?

 

[pennylane]

Originally posted by: weezergirl
Why don't authors ever complain about how their books are free to check out at a library instead of people having to BUY THEIR BOOK to read it instead? I know so many people who don't buy books but just go to the library and check it out instead.

What's the difference?

They don't keep the books.

 

[yllus]

I assume books a library buys are limited to a quantity of X, which the author's publishers allots to whet the public's appetite for their writings.

But you're right, it's not that far off.

 

[notfred]

You must have better libraries than we do. Nothing in ours is less than 10 years old. Actually, that was true for the last library I went to, but I don't go to them anymore.

Anyway, letting people borrow books is not illegal. Making copies of them and giving them away is.

 

[WarmAndSCSI]

If you deleted the files after you were done... it would sort of be like a library.... NOT!

 

[bigben]

There is also a difference in volume...even if people only got their books from libraries, there are thousands of libraries nation wide, and millions worldwide - you are talking instant sales.

with Kazaa you only need one copy of a song to distribute, and therefore at the max only one sale. Of course, if it is leaked, then no sales at all

 

[Booster]

Ha. Good luck finding anything worthy on Kazaa. It's by far not a library. Even IF anyone manages to find anything, it would be a worthless bestseller, not the book you need. So give up. Libraries are the only way.

 

[yukichigai]

Originally posted by: weezergirl
Why don't authors ever complain about how their books are free to check out at a library instead of people having to BUY THEIR BOOK to read it instead? I know so many people who don't buy books but just go to the library and check it out instead.

What's the difference?

Libraries get government money to purchase the books, so the authors get revenue from them. On top of that you can't keep the books and it's pretty hard to make copies. I'm also pretty sure the libraries pay a bit more than most people do for retail for sort of a royalty thing.

I do however think there's no reason whatsoever that we don't have some sort of library of music. We rent movies in this country, so why not music?

 

[filmmaker]

Originally posted by: Booster
Ha. Good luck finding anything worthy on Kazaa. It's by far not a library. Even IF anyone manages to find anything, it would be a worthless bestseller, not the book you need. So give up. Libraries are the only way.

Or buy it at the bookstore, then take it back when you are done. Just make sure you don't bend the pages too much.

j/k

 

[ndee]

Originally posted by: Booster
Ha. Good luck finding anything worthy on Kazaa. It's by far not a library. Even IF anyone manages to find anything, it would be a worthless bestseller, not the book you need. So give up. Libraries are the only way.

uhm.... someone didn't get it? Or am I really that stupid?

 

[huey1124]

you're talking about the principle, right? however, if you could check out mp3 and avi files from library, i'm sure more people would use it. also, i have several friends who are avid readers, and they must go out and buy books they consider worth keeping.

 

[Miramonti]

not a bad question.

I think the answer is in the copyright/copying aspect. You can't go to a library and legally copy a book either.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Originally posted by: yukichigai

Originally posted by: weezergirl
Why don't authors ever complain about how their books are free to check out at a library instead of people having to BUY THEIR BOOK to read it instead? I know so many people who don't buy books but just go to the library and check it out instead.

What's the difference?

Libraries get government money to purchase the books, so the authors get revenue from them. On top of that you can't keep the books and it's pretty hard to make copies. I'm also pretty sure the libraries pay a bit more than most people do for retail for sort of a royalty thing.

I do however think there's no reason whatsoever that we don't have some sort of library of music. We rent movies in this country, so why not music?

Because music is a lot easier to copy and keep than a movie.

 

[Booster]

Not to mention that it's extremely difficult to read the screen for prolonged periods of time IMO. You'd have to print the 'book', but it would be what, like 500 pages... The printer cartridge would be emptied at once, and it's a ton of paper. Then, how to bind it? I mean these A4 sheets. It's a lot better and even cheaper just to order the real book IMO.

 

[Encryptic]

Generally, most people aren't going to go home and make a copy of the book and post it on the Internet for other people to download. That would be a lot more time-consuming and expensive than 15-20 minutes of computer time to rip a CD and encode to MP3.

As someone else pointed out, libraries are funded with government money to purchase books, so the authors and publishers do get their money that way.

 

[bcterps]

Libraries are better, cause then you can make 1 to 1 copies of the cds you borrow from there.

 

[bcterps]

dp

 

[Nitemare]

Libraries have crappy music and a better book selection?

also libraries are immune(ok not immune but it would be suicidal, think Kenneth Starr) to being sued from the RIAA since they are government endorsed entities and not privately held companies

 

[zsouthboy]

Originally posted by: filmmaker

Originally posted by: Booster
Ha. Good luck finding anything worthy on Kazaa. It's by far not a library. Even IF anyone manages to find anything, it would be a worthless bestseller, not the book you need. So give up. Libraries are the only way.

Or buy it at the bookstore, then take it back when you are done. Just make sure you don't bend the pages too much.

j/k

Heh... Seinfeld episode....

"It's been marked sir. This book has been in the bathroom."

 

[filmmaker]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Libraries have crappy music and a better book selection?

My library has a pretty kick ass musical selection.

 

[Josh]

With libraries, it's assumed that if you borrow the book/movie you are NOT copying it or whatever. With Kazaa I guess it's just assumed that you don't have the CD already or something. I dunno

 

[yukichigai]

Originally posted by: KnightBreed

Originally posted by: yukichigai

Originally posted by: weezergirl
Why don't authors ever complain about how their books are free to check out at a library instead of people having to BUY THEIR BOOK to read it instead? I know so many people who don't buy books but just go to the library and check it out instead.

What's the difference?

Libraries get government money to purchase the books, so the authors get revenue from them. On top of that you can't keep the books and it's pretty hard to make copies. I'm also pretty sure the libraries pay a bit more than most people do for retail for sort of a royalty thing.

I do however think there's no reason whatsoever that we don't have some sort of library of music. We rent movies in this country, so why not music?

Because music is a lot easier to copy and keep than a movie.

This is only because the music industry is far too lazy to impliment copy protection as they've done with movies. Lemme get on a rant here.

The thing with the music industry is that it seems to be based on a business model with a sort of minimum level of sales for any artist that's published. The way this is accomplished is through the universal $15 price for CDs. Let us say that New Artist A comes out with a hit song that everyone likes. It gets radio play and of course people get psyched for the CD release. New Artist B also comes out with a hit song of equal popularity and has a CD release that coincides with A's. The only real difference between A and B is that A has a solid CD with 90% of the tracks being good ones, whereas B is a "one hit wonder" with just the one hit song on a CD filled with crap. When the CDs are released what happens? CD A will of course sell well because it is a good CD, but CD B will sell almost as well, maybe 85% of what CD A sold, because people don't have any way of knowing the CD is crap before they buy it or unless a friend has it first. The system is basically set up to generate the maximum amount of money with the minimal amount of talent. I think the music industry is not concerned with piracy so much as losing money when people finally stop and figure out "hey, they're selling us s%$#!"

Anyway, it's perfectly possible to impliment copy protection on CDs, it just hasn't been done.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Originally posted by: yukichigai

Originally posted by: KnightBreed

Originally posted by: yukichigai

Originally posted by: weezergirl
Why don't authors ever complain about how their books are free to check out at a library instead of people having to BUY THEIR BOOK to read it instead? I know so many people who don't buy books but just go to the library and check it out instead.

What's the difference?

Libraries get government money to purchase the books, so the authors get revenue from them. On top of that you can't keep the books and it's pretty hard to make copies. I'm also pretty sure the libraries pay a bit more than most people do for retail for sort of a royalty thing.

I do however think there's no reason whatsoever that we don't have some sort of library of music. We rent movies in this country, so why not music?

Because music is a lot easier to copy and keep than a movie.

This is only because the music industry is far too lazy to impliment copy protection as they've done with movies. Lemme get on a rant here.

The thing with the music industry is that it seems to be based on a business model with a sort of minimum level of sales for any artist that's published. The way this is accomplished is through the universal $15 price for CDs. Let us say that New Artist A comes out with a hit song that everyone likes. It gets radio play and of course people get psyched for the CD release. New Artist B also comes out with a hit song of equal popularity and has a CD release that coincides with A's. The only real difference between A and B is that A has a solid CD with 90% of the tracks being good ones, whereas B is a "one hit wonder" with just the one hit song on a CD filled with crap. When the CDs are released what happens? CD A will of course sell well because it is a good CD, but CD B will sell almost as well, maybe 85% of what CD A sold, because people don't have any way of knowing the CD is crap before they buy it or unless a friend has it first. The system is basically set up to generate the maximum amount of money with the minimal amount of talent. I think the music industry is not concerned with piracy so much as losing money when people finally stop and figure out "hey, they're selling us s%$#!"

Anyway, it's perfectly possible to impliment copy protection on CDs, it just hasn't been done.

Yes, it has been done. There have been CDs before that wouldn't work in a CD-ROM drive (though, nothing a good old fashion sharpie wouldn't cure). If it wouldn't work in your PC, you couldn't rip the music as easily. Of course, people were up in arms because they couldn't legitimately listen to their music on their computer.

Copy protection has been done numerous times before, and people get pissed every time because the protection infringes on their fair-use rights. You can step off your soapbox; it's nothing we haven't heard before. (1) You can sample an entire CD using listening stations within some stores - FYE comes to mind. (2) You can ask friends if they liked the CD. (3) You can research the album online. Their's no excuse for buying a bad CD.

 

[jurzdevil]

a similarity is they both have names that people screw up when pronouncing

 

[yukichigai]

Originally posted by: KnightBreed

Originally posted by: yukichigai

The thing with the music industry is that it seems to be based on a business model with a sort of minimum level of sales for any artist that's published. The way this is accomplished is through the universal $15 price for CDs. Let us say that New Artist A comes out with a hit song that everyone likes. It gets radio play and of course people get psyched for the CD release. New Artist B also comes out with a hit song of equal popularity and has a CD release that coincides with A's. The only real difference between A and B is that A has a solid CD with 90% of the tracks being good ones, whereas B is a "one hit wonder" with just the one hit song on a CD filled with crap. When the CDs are released what happens? CD A will of course sell well because it is a good CD, but CD B will sell almost as well, maybe 85% of what CD A sold, because people don't have any way of knowing the CD is crap before they buy it or unless a friend has it first. The system is basically set up to generate the maximum amount of money with the minimal amount of talent. I think the music industry is not concerned with piracy so much as losing money when people finally stop and figure out "hey, they're selling us s%$#!"

Anyway, it's perfectly possible to impliment copy protection on CDs, it just hasn't been done.

Yes, it has been done. There have been CDs before that wouldn't work in a CD-ROM drive (though, nothing a good old fashion sharpie wouldn't cure). If it wouldn't work in your PC, you couldn't rip the music as easily. Of course, people were up in arms because they couldn't legitimately listen to their music on their computer.

Copy protection has been done numerous times before, and people get pissed every time because the protection infringes on their fair-use rights. You can step off your soapbox; it's nothing we haven't heard before. (1) You can sample an entire CD using listening stations within some stores - FYE comes to mind. (2) You can ask friends if they liked the CD. (3) You can research the album online. Their's no excuse for buying a bad CD.

1) Only one major chain has listening stations where you can listen to samples of every track on any CD in the store, and that's Virgin. All the others either only let you listen a number of selected CDs or play only samples of tracks selected by the record labels. The record labels get final say on whether or not stores are allowed to put up the CD for listening usually, so they still can hide the crappiness of a CD if they want. (Case in point: Goldfinger's latest album)

2) This still means someone has to buy the CD first without knowing. And it's still word of mouth rather than hands-on stuff.

3) If this is in the form of reviews it's still word of mouth type stuff, and as for samples offered online most sites limit you to a few select samples the record labels choose.


I should however have been a little more clear in my original point about copy protection. I was talking of effective copy protection, copy protection that did not infringe on fair-use rights. The previous attempts at copy protection I hardly count because they weren't particularly serious attempts. Movies have Macrovision, which only kicks in when you try to record a movie. (Most times. There are exceptions) DVDs have CSS as well as Macrovision. Both are well-implimented methods, whereas CDs have not had anything even remotely as effective and fair as either of these. Of course there are ways to get around both of them but there will always be ways to circumvent copy protection.