Why Ebook Portal Library.nu Differed From Other Filesharing Sites
from the paying-the-price dept
A couple of weeks ago the popular ebook portal Library.nu was shut down, apparently voluntarily, after a coalition of book publishers obtained an injunction against it and a similar site. As an excellent post on the kNOw Future Inc. blog points out, Library.nu was significant in a number of ways:
the demand for the works offered there demonstrates that filesharing is not just about pop music, porn and cams of action movies, but also those forms and sources of knowledge whose acquisition are ritually celebrated within 'enlightenment' culture.
The stereotypical downloader -- young, and looking for easy entertainment online -- was in part a function of what was available initially. The Library.nu site showed that fans of "high culture" were just as keen to obtain digital versions of their stuff as those with more "low-brow" tastes.
Many of those whose works were offered derive income not from royalties, but from related activities such as teaching and research. Such people were themselves an important component library.nu’ user base.
The first part means that the authors of those books wrote not for money, principally, but for other reasons -- for example, prestige or influence. It was actually in their interests for their works to be circulated as widely as possible in order to enhance their reputation, and Library.nu made that possible. It's not clear what evidence there is for the second sentence quoted above, but assuming it's true, it would indicate that for some, at least, the Library.nu ethos was "share and share alike".
The post concludes:
Some [of those downloading from Library.nu] have other means to access the same materials, others, especially those in countries with weaker education infrastructures and more emaciated library budgets, do not. Outside of formal education, the millions of online autodidacts may be denied access to material, seriously impinging on their lives and possibilities. When one considers the cost of text books and more especially scholarly articles, that is no hyperbole, and applies not only to the global south but the post-industrial north as well, awash in its dreams of knowledge economies and human capital.
That suggests two things. First, that publishers are missing out on a huge audience that is hungry for knowledge, but simply can't afford text books, say, at current pricing. Once again, piracy is driven partly by a failure to serve the market properly.
The other point is that although publishers may rejoice that Library.nu has been taken down, readers around the world will suffer in terms of losing access to these works that they can't afford. Some may say that's just tough, or that these people should work harder or make greater sacrifices elsewhere in order to be able to afford such books. But in many locations, those books are not available legally at any price.
As a result, when sites like Library.nu disappear, there is a cost to society as a whole because of the knock-on effects of reduced information flow, and of practical knowledge that is unavailable for application as a result. In this respect, sites with large collections of digitized textbooks are quite different from those that are principally offering music or video downloads for entertainment.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: culture, ebooks, file sharing, library
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
One group will win
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Glyn, let's be fair. The numbers coming out in the Megaupload site deal just don't match up with the spew that has been going on about the site for years, and there is no reason to think that this site is any different.
While there may be a component of users who are "high brow" or what have you, it is no different from the rare person using mega as a backup site or using bit torrent for linux updates. Yes, they exist, but they are such a small part of the game, it is misleading to key on them.
Mega? 90% of the users were pure downloaders, never uploaded a single thing. So how many users were using it only for a back up or only to work collaborative with remote people? A few, but certainly not enough to justify all the other stuff going on.
The researcher who wrote the blog certainly appears to have started out trying (like you) to justify illegal acts by pointing to the rare legal ones. It is a little to transparent, that is for sure.
Please - stop with the justification posts, they just make Techdirt look bad (and that takes some effort).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There is no censorship in content. Get over it.
Can you please either make a valid point or get over it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Whoopee - you're telling us that copyright has been abolished - and to think that YOU broke the news!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Writing a new book wouldn't remove that monopoly, but instead create a new commodity (and another monopoly should the new copyright proprietor so choose).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That your local store sells Coke and not Pepsi isn't a "monopoly", it is an exclusive contract between that store and that company, nothing more. It doesn't create a monopoly, as you the consumer can go next door and buy Pepsi.
So no, there are no monopolies on books, movies, or music. Claiming that there is pretty much is a silly argument. Nobody is stopping you from making your own (or buying from another source).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When I buy a chair, I hand over money for which I get the chair and a receipt. This chair has been mass-produced from a master copy at some sort of plant. After the money has changed hands, this particular chair is mine. There are many more like it, but this one is mine. I have bought one of many identical copies and the receipt proves it.
As this copy of the chair is mine, exclusively mine, there are a number of things I can do with it. I can take it apart and use the pieces for new hobby projects, which I may choose to sell, give away, put out as exhibits or throw away. I can put it out on the porch and charge neighbors for using it. I can examine its construction, produce new chars from my deductions with some raw material that is also my property, and do whatever I like with the new chairs, particularly including selling them.
All of this is normal for property. It is mine; I may do what I like with it. Build copies, sell, display, whatever.
As a sidetrack, this assumes that there are no patents on the chair. However, assuming that the invention of the chair is older than 20 years, any filed patents on this particular invention have expired. Therefore, patents are not relevant for this discussion.
Now, let’s jump to what happens when I buy a movie.
When I buy a movie, I hand over money and I get the DVD and a receipt. This movie has been mass-produced from a master copy at some sort of plant. After the money has changed hands, this particular movie is mine. There are many more like it, but this one is mine. I have bought one of many identical copies and the receipt proves it.
Despite the fact that this copy of the movie is mine, exclusively mine, there are a number of things that I may not do with it, prohibited from doing so by the copyright monopoly held by somebody else. I may not use pieces of the movie for new hobby projects that I sell, give away, or put out as exhibits. I may not charge the neighbors for using it on the porch. I may not examine its construction and produce new copies. All of these rights would be normal for property, but the copyright monopoly is a severe limitation on my property rights for items I have legitimately bought.
It is not possible to say that I own the the DVD when viewed in one way but not when viewed in another. There is a clear definition of property, and the receipt says I own the DVD in all its interpretations and aspects. Every part of the shape making up the DVD is mine. The copyright monopoly, however, limits how I can use my own property.
This doesn’t inherently mean that the copyright monopoly is bad. It does, however, mean that the monopoly cannot be defended from the standpoint that property rights are good. If you take your stand from there, you will come to the conclusion that the copyright monopoly is bad as it is a limitation of property rights.
Defending the copyright monopoly with the justification that property rights are sacred is quite like defending the death penalty for murder with the justification that life is sacred. There may be other, valid, justifications for defending the copyright monopoly and these limitations of property rights — but that particular chain of logic just doesn’t hold."
I stole these words. But I fear you would focus too much on bashing the source rather than the content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nice try, but it's not a monopoly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can't possibly believe that exclusionary rights are anything but a granted monopoly.
Well you could but then you be a just another dumb person in the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you are granted exclusive rights to sell something and distribute it than you are being granted a monopoly on that item.
Now weasel yourself out of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Commodity is books, movies, music. Individual items cannot be a MONOPOLY, because there is no way to create another one like it. There is nobody shut out from the "Star Wars Movie Market" because there is only one Star Wars series.
You confuse exclusive with a monopoly.
Keep trying.
You can look up this if you need help explaining why you don't get the difference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moron_(psychology)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But Lucas Arts hold the monopoly on all things Star Wars from moives to books to dinnerware to bedsheets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your logic says that you have lost your freedom because we have property rights. You are not allowed to camp on your neighbor's yard, because property rights say they can choose who camps there.
They have a MONOPOLY on their yard! Damn bastards!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please. Limited time, my ass. But lets not focus on that. It doesn't limit exclusive right to that movie. It gives them an exclusive right to any individual part of the movie. So despite lightsabers being part of the public conscious for 30 years if I use anything remotely similar in my movie I risk them suing me for a part of my profits. They also own words like "droid" "jedi," how long do you get to OWN a word before you call it a monopoly?
http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/673658/lucasarts-sues-digg-over-name/
http://w ww.tomsguide.com/us/LucasFilm-Jedi-Star-Wars,news-7846.html
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2009/11/ 06/motorola-pays-lucas-for-its-droid/
The own an entire universe that we grew up with and will continue to own it for the rest of our lives. They will throw a cease and desist at anything that even remotely resembles something from their universe. When you make the exclusive right last life+70years you are making it a monopoly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And since copyright is basically a contract between content creators and the public arbitrated by congress, for the benefit of the public, and the terms have been increased in favor of one party (the copyright holders) with no input from the other (the public), it is a contract that has not been negotiated in good faith and therefore should be declared null and void (and probably would if it was just a regular contract between two entities).
So, unless you're willing to return copyright to its original terms and sit down and renegotiate in good faith with ALL concerned parties to come up with a plan to fix copyright where the needs and wants of everyone are fairly heard, I don't see any reason for me to give any respect to copyright as it stands today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They are the same thing and you are an idiot.
From the dictionary.com
monopoly
"an exclusive privilege .."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is not difficult to understand is it?
Also not difficult to understand is the why nobody should be granted a monopoly or the right to exclude others from doing anything and that is the fact that limits others and will create friction, reduce availability and increase costs, in some cases some monopolies are beneficial and desirable but only when they occur naturally and are not mandated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The point being that broadly calling movies and music a monopoly is bullshit from the word go. The original poster used a broad brush approach to monopoly, which is just not right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They own it, and they own the right to choose what happens to it under license.
Is the ownership of your car a monopoly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So everyone owns Moby-Dick?
That's a funny kind of property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes we do, the copyright expired making it "Public Domain."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The entire point is that a monopoly implies that nobody else can do something.
The something I want to do is make a space movie with lightsaber weapons in it. Due to copyright (monopoly granted to Lucas) I cannot make such a film. Every single copyright is a granted monopoly. As a whole all copyrights are monopolies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah. So you admit it is a monopoly, you just don't care. Got it.
By the way, it is a monopoly. This is not debatable. It has always been described as such by legislators, and that it is a monopoly has been reiterated many times by the Supreme Court:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's all about the African folk characters traveling to Disneyland!
I'm sure no one will object, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think the important thing to remember is, see, that art and culture should ultimately be decided on by judges, lawyers, and politicians, oh my!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Would that be parody, or a cryingly accurate representation of the historical treatment of real human beings?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We all know what a monopoly is and that is having the power to exclude others from some market and that is exactly what copyright does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't think I've ever heard this asserted before. Anywhere. Not even amongst copyright scholars regardless of their opinion of copyright. Maybe because it's completely wrong. The entire stated purpose of copyright is to create a limited-term monopoly as an incentive. The word "monopoly" has been used to describe copyright, even by the framers, from day one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copyright is completely unenforceable. Get over it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"-- Art. 9. Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature and their own inventions in the arts for a term not exceeding -- years but for no longer term and no other purpose. "
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is that simple, if people want access to knowledge in any acceptable way, just don't fallow the law because if you do, you will be excluded by the monopolies put in place to stop the spread of that knowledge or data and you want be able to use it for anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You think as man thinks - not as God thinks.
From Genesis 18
"And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?
24Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?
25That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
26And the LORD said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.
27And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the LORD, which am but dust and ashes:
28Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of five? And he said, If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it.
...
...
32And he said, Oh let not the LORD be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Worth thinking about so no, in this context I find his post both intriguing and to the point...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The few legit users exist mostly as a cover for the widespread illegal activity. The pirates will point to the legit people and say "see, our service is legit". Effectively, they use the few legit users as a sort of human shield. It's a wholly and obvious facade, nothing more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> they perhaps need to move to a new pool.
So the few innocent Linux users spend time and effort to invent a new protocol to replace BitTorrent. It is fast and very efficient for distributing very large files to a large number or people. Everyone happy.
Later, other people notice this new tool and recognize that it works equally well to distribute images of DVD's as well as Linux images. They spend no effort on software development, they just download and use the tools others have created. Soon this new tool (like BitTorrent was originally) is being used for massive copyright infringement.
Soon the copyright maximalists generalize that all BitTorrent traffic is infringing. ISP's should just shut it all down. Ditto for this new protocol and tool that Linux users develop -- it should be shut down as well.
The problem with moving to a new pool is that others, perhaps unwelcome, move there too.
Ditto for tools like DropBox. A very handy tool to move legitimate files between your devices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The logic just doesn't follow. Are you suggesting that a crack house with a single, non-crack addicted person in it should make it illegal for police to raid and shut down?
Are you suggesting that, because Mafia members also have children living in their homes and legit workers in their "social clubs" that these locations should be exempt from raids?
Are you suggesting that a pirate site with a single legit file on it is somehow suddenly a legit service?
Logical fail!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No but if an apartment complex has some crack dealers in it they can not kick everyone out.
"Are you suggesting that, because Mafia members also have children living in their homes and legit workers in their "social clubs" that these locations should be exempt from raids?"
No but the non-criminals should not be punished.
"Are you suggesting that a pirate site with a single legit file on it is somehow suddenly a legit service?"
right there was 1 legit file on MU.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They close MU but don't pursue anyone who was using it illegally. They just level the building, with out an eviction notice, and walk away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or the misplaced moral high-ground. There are tons of (legitimate) companies that earned a huge share of the market by not really doing anything to fight piracy (Think Engineering CAD / Audio recording software). They realized that most of the people infringing were amateurs or students and realized there was an opportunity to lock these people in to their platform as they transition to industry.
As for entertainment, there have been tons of suggestions of ways to recapture some audiences who casually infringe (the only area where there might be reclaimed revenues). As for textbooks, its tragic how hard the publishers will fight what is best for students and academia in order to line their pockets for the next decade.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, where the heck did I say that?
There is absolutely no direct relationship between decreasing piracy and increasing sales. All that decreasing piracy does is increase the POTENTIAL market.
If people really want the product, and they don't have a freebie pirated download to get, they will either buy it,rent it, or live without it.
You don't like the textbook market? Write your own. Keep them current. Print new versions on a regular basis. Try to deal with an inventory cycle that is about 350 days, and try to deal with a product that goes stale usually within a couple of years as the information in them gets OTBE.
I think the real tragedy is that you want education to be farmed out to whoever can do it the cheapest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The free-est! After all, this is knowledge we are talking about!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Publishers have locked contracts with colleges and professors. They republish the calculus series books every year, and most of math hasn't changed in a LONG time. Same goes for practically all arts and sciences. I can think of very few subjects (design, web design, some CS, Material sciences) where the subject material has changed significantly, and even then only in certain areas.
You don't need new versions. What people would like is electronic copies. If that means major publishers go out of business so be it, since they are only in business due to horrible contracts and lobbying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm not preaching I'm making a moral point and using a biblical reference. You don't have to believe in the religion to see the point.
The point is that even a small number of innocent users should not be punished for the actions of the guilty (not that they necessarily ARE guilty btw).
Backing it with a biblical text implies that it is a moral line that is widely accepted in our culture as a gold standard of behaviour - and a gold standard that the US justice system has failed to meet on this occasion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Seriously, this was actually a worthwhile contribution. I don't care if it was from the Bible, the Quran, or Thor's Table Rants.
In fact, given that we are talking about the religion-obsessed USA, it's even more appropriate.
Oops, sorry great Thor!.... >
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
90% of statistics without sources are bullshit made up to hold up someones weak point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.scribd.com/full/82007764?access_key=key-1f222owpr8bl6ewzk6gh
I think someone needs to learn to read comments before making a stupid one themselves...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Second post, and before 8:00 AM!
You must be on overtime pay...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Citation please ?
" So how many users were using it only for a back up or only to work collaborative with remote people? A few, but certainly not enough to justify all the other stuff going on."
Again, Citation .. please ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.scribd.com/full/82007764?access_key=key-1f222owpr8bl6ewzk6gh
Enjoy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You don't like people sharing data?
Get over it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That 90% figure doesn't mean anything really. Basically it means that one person was sharing with 9 others. That would be the about the average for a small business sharing work files with their peers.
Adding into the mix would be artists using Mega as a platform to earn money by driving downloads of their own works, which one would imagine to be at least a 1:1000 ratio or so.
I am still not sure why you think that figure is significant in any way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
90% of the users of mega only downloaded, and NEVER uploaded. That just isn't normal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I agree. Probably closer to 1:100,000 really.
I was staying very conservative on my estimate for the sake of this argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Normal as opposed to what exactly?
You also tend to leave out the part about incentives for driving downloads to content. Of course the number of downloaders would be greater than the number of uploaders.
I have no clue as to what percentage of the uses of the content were infringing and neither do you.
I still think you need to wait and see how many responses the EFF gets on this before you start spouting of silly numbers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
90% of users only download
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please go educate yourself about what the pareto rule means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
People like you are why we can't have nice things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
still a red herring the question would be to download WHAT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
and what is the ratio for iTunes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Zeropaid: How to Master Email Encryption By Hannah on February 9, 2012
Or they can use Retroshare :)
Also I hear that Scandinavian countries are positioning themselves to become a data storage hotspot in the world.
CNN: Scandinavian cold could create data storage hotspot by Juliet Mann and Neil Curry, CNN on February 24, 2012 owned by the
thieving Warner Bros Co.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This phrase was particularly well-turned. All the fighting over IP is just a symptom of the decline in actually making things. The "service economy" is a joke. If I cut your hair today and you shine my shoes, tomorrow we're both broke. The "knowledge economy" is even more abstracted from the base of added value through manufacturing. Since we don't make things anymore, our aggregate net worth is declining, and all we can do is fight amongst ourselves for what's left and distract ourselves with entertainment. And this is just the beginning...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If I cut your hair today and you shine my shoes, tomorrow we're both broke.
My hair is cut and your shoes shined. If everything was like that, we wouldn't need aggregate net worth.
All this worry about aggregate net worth...it's like somehow that means anything. You do realize that money has no objective value, right? Even when we used the gold standard, the rock itself had no value.
You want to produce something? Go create the next generation of cultural producers and sharers (i.e., humans)...those are where we'll derive our aggregate net worth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sort of misleading. You got the money to pay for the haircut by selling software, and the guy who shined your shoes bought the polish from a company that uses your software.
Are you both broke, or both richer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ummmm
We are beyond paper now. So what does this mean for actual libraries? They can't offer ebooks ? They can't be accessed online?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ummmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have some other experiences I would like to try as well. Since I won't be keeping a physical copy of something, it should be free. My experiences will greatly improve my life and provide me the ability to share my experience with others and would therefor provide a benefit to society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You would love to drive a Bentley, but can't afford to do so. You want the experience and what have you.
Well, your example would be more spot on if instead of just saying "well I'm not keeping a physical copy wre wre wre free", you instead said, "If someone created a device, that allowed me to make an exact copy of say my neighbor's Bentley, without depriving him of his Bentley, then that would be perfect and exactly what I want."
You now can enjoy the experience of driving the Bentley, your neighbor still has his. Anyone who wants one could produce a copy from the original or yours (which is an exact copy of the original) and all for free. A replicator/materializer/etc is what we're talking about here.
And, if you didn't want to own it, you could just give it to someone else, after trying it out and relishing the experience. You didn't take anything, heck you could barely say you even borrowed it. Although, I doubt it would improve YOUR life. Some people just aren't happy no matter what. Hence all the b*tching about this or that, kids on lawns, people making copies, etc. You'd fall into that category. I'm a miserable person (inside) and can't stand see people enjoying themselves through loopholes or technicalities or anything in general. Here is why all of you are bad. And I'm wagging my finger at each and every one of you.
You sir/ma'am fail at your analogy. Just wanted to say that again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Have fun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is there no end to your stupidity?
The moment that someone reduces the marginal cost of producing a Bentley to zero your analogy will start working.
GO and study some economics before you try this kind of thing again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wont go there..
1 company has control over 1 product...
NOT 2-3-4...1 company has ALL rights and ability to restrict any part of a product.
Piracy:
The ability to sell the SAME product as a monopoly, Cheaper then the company...
Sharing:
Giving a copy of something or the same, to a friend/other..
Its always fun when you find out that you can make a Copy of your data/music/game cheaper then the CORPS can sell it. there is a draw back in that you arent using the HIGH END CD/DVD..its also fun to find your PAID for original is ALL SCRATCHED UP..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We need a global digital library
ps: note that i only talk about academic publications. i understand that for fiction writers, who try to make a living off their writing, the situation might be more difficult.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Megaupload was making millions sharing blockbusters, that's a fact though.
All this anti-nu crusade is entirely theoretical, vindictive and fundamentally absurd. Pff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is a great loss, but rational minds will create other options to share knowledge with people who can't afford $200+ textbooks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Life without Library.nu is scary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Life without Library.nu is scary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Closing library nu
But in fact in the actual system the biggest part of the benefits go to the publisher. This is why they want to keep prices of book very high. They want money, spreading knowledge is nothing for them.
Nowadays it is very easy to produce a very high quality typesetting without the help of publishers!!
In fact, if it were possible to buy the books for one dollar
each and send the money directly to the authors, I am sure that they would earn more than what they receive as royalties now. For one actual reader there would be 20 or more...
The system could be simple authors produce their own books and put them line. "The customer" buy a 10 dollars tickets and is then allowed to download 10 books...(There could be special prices for students...)the buer could have a partial prview of the book...
I hope that a such a system will emerge soon...
Yes I downloaded some books that I have not in paper forms but most the books I took from library nu are on my shelves...at home. I am very often abroad and it is much easier to travel with a usb key than with my shelves.
For the students I am sure it is a real catastrophy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a blow on scholarship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That is why I need library.nu!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
boycot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I had apprehension that one day the site will be stopped and forced to shutdown. And that apprehension became true. Publishers joined together and by forcibly made the site to quit by that they have drawn the shutters for those people who really wished to read scholarly books for acquiring the knowledge to scale new heights in their chosen field.
In fact, books on Sex and pornography should be heavily priced so much heavy that people who really wish they have to pay and buy them - not the scholarly book, since the knowledge and wisdom should freely available or at least at minimum price. But this is the other way. The books on Frontier areas of Science and Technology can't afforded by the common people. Only library can have. Sorry, that too not for all library - only for Institutes which are heavily funded. That means they are only for the selected people. Library.nu actually made those books available for all those - simply they require the net connection. My self, and other millions and millions, certainly have enriched by this site
In the era of Internet, I believe, publishing Industry has changed. One should accept the fact. Just few years ago, no one have dreamt the possibility of reading NewYork Times, Gurdian, and many other frontline news papers and magazines without paying in our home which are situated in remote areas - other corners of the globe. But now it is possible. In the name of piracy if they stop, who are the losers? We the the readers and the society in large. In a way Wikipedia is an alternative for Encyclopedia. It is the collective efforts of the people to share the information. Archxiv.org is also an alternative for the standard Journals. Slowly it has acquired more and more acceptability in academia. Many scientists - even Nobel laureates - are publishing their findings in them. Those people who wish to derive more knowledge are now heavily depend on Archxiv.org. Off course, they know that all those information there are not fully authentic. But whatever information available are at least sufficient for them as guiding light.. LINUX , LATEX and many other open software are also the voice against the monopoly of the company. There was a time - pictures and photos were priced to print and copy one should have pay heavily. But now scenario has changed. They are available freely. By giving the proper credit, breath taking pictures taken by Hubble, Chandra and other telescopes can be used. The same is happening in the field of music and arts. YouTube itself is the example. The society is enjoying this new trend. Music has gone into the masses. But the music industry has not closed. On the contrary the music industry has been flourishing. The same is true in book publishing.
That means Library.nu has not done any criminal activity. It has done the activity in pace with the changing time. By forcing the site to shut down, the people behind this action have created a huge void in millions and millions people who were using the site to acquire the new information and knowledge. Shut down of Library.nu is a terrible loss. Hope soon it will be restored and available for the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if i knew
tell me if there is another website like nu library, i need it desperately since my budget doesn't meet those books prices...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
publishers will not benefit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what has happened to the OLD library.nu?
http://library.nu/lnu.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
library.nu alternative
[ link to this | view in chronology ]