How is torrenting different from going to the library and borrowing DVD for free? Besides scale and efficiency, in principle, how is tpb different from a library?
Well, for one the library has a legal right to lend the DVD, and it can only lend it one at a time, and the library doesn’t make it’s own copy nor do you (legally). That’s a pretty massive difference. So, not just one but two principled fundamental differences: 1- the library’s actions are legal, and 2- in the library case, no copies are being made by either party.
How does the answer to this question help inform my question?
These are not differences in principle. These are just practical differences that affect efficiency of distribution of information, with a little moralistic paint on it.
There's no difference in principle between homosexuality in the UK in the 60s and now. But it was illegal then, not now. Something being legal or illegal is not a fundamental difference. Something being fundamentally different can be a reason something should be legal or illegal, but something being illegal cannot be used as a justification that it should be.
As far as copying, looking at the fundamental principle that libraries operate on, that information should be made available to as many people as possible as best we can regardless of their socioeconomic status, the only difference I can find is that torrenting and copying are more efficient than libraries in achieving the stated goal. When libraries do it inefficiently it is regarded as a virtue, when we do it ourselves more efficiently without institutional support we are regarded as thieves. But fundamentally, are they not the exact same thing?
My question addresses yours because the answer, if it is "they're not fundamentally different in principle" which is my position, negates yours entirely, and if you can show me how they're fundamentally different in principle, negates that very powerful and apt criticism of your position. The answer basically determines if you're right or I'm right.
I asked what the difference is from a legal perspective, and you’re saying there is no difference in principle when the law changes. That’s clearly a misunderstanding on your part.
Your argument about efficiency is reductionism, it’s completely ignoring copyright and law. I didn’t make the law nor am I defending copyright or the law, but those are absolutely relevant, you can’t pretend they are “moralistic” details and ignore them. At least not if you want your argument to be taken seriously.
> But fundamentally, are they not the exact same thing?
Correct, they are not the exact same thing, not fundamentally, not in principle, and not in practice. Libraries operate on the principle of paying for copies of media in order to loan them out 1 at a time. They do not operate on the principle of making their own copies of media nor on distributing as many copies as possible.
Your answer, in my view, is irrelevant to my unanswered question.
