The fundamental difference is that BT assumes you make a copy. Everyone who gets a copy has that copy forever, essentially gaining all the benefits of purchase. At a library, however, you get it for 3 weeks and then you bring it back. It's protected by the doctrine of first sale which says that I can do what I wish with the physical thing that I own, include lending it or reselling it. Digital copies are not "lent" they are copied and never need to be returned.

>Allow me to laugh, because the last people who benefit by this system are content creators. If you seriously believe copyright is, was or will be for creators, you're in for a bad surprise if you ever take a look at the history of what probably was the most harmful idea mankind ever allowed to happen.

This argument... is patently untrue. If I publish a book, everyone who buys a copy puts money in my pocket. Everyone who downloads it without buying it gets all the benefits of my work without compensating me. To make the argument your making is unfair to all the people who make their living producing content.

Here's the deal, I get your point. I agree with it. I think the content industry (I make a distinction from the copyright industry because I think copyright, in its intended form is a good thing) is crappy. It continually tries to subvert our rights (our right to the free flow of information, i.e. net neutrality, our right to the public domain, our right to use our content, our right to fair use, etc.). That's bad. But don't walk around trying to say that downloading stuff is not stealing. It is. Don't consume the content if the industry bothers you that much. Buy your music directly from artists, go to the opera, read only public domain books, whatever, hell, even steal it, but don't pretend you're doing the writer or musician a favor.

So? If I really wanted, I could make a copy of a book from the library, too. The possibilities are endless, but all of them are less convenient and cost more than a digital copy. Other than that, there is no factual difference. Your argument is still invalid.

>This argument... is patently untrue.

Except it isn't. Unless you define "benefits from the system" as "gets a very small slice of the overall profits from a sale, the rest of which is swallowed by a useless industry".

>Everyone who downloads it without buying it gets all the benefits of my work without compensating me.

Am I obliged to pay you? No. You demand to be payed for the costless act of copying your book. That's ridiculous. If you want to be compensated for actually writing the book, find alternate ways of doing so (there's Kickstarter, for example). Nobody is entitled to make a living of selling copies of a non-scarce good. It's cool if you can, but not if that involves needing an artificial monopoly on said non-scarce good.

I take the liberal approach here: I can't force you to give me things, but neither can you stop me (or others) from sharing them.

>But don't walk around trying to say that downloading stuff is not stealing.

But it isn't, no matter how much you some people try to insist it is. There is no valid definition of "stealing" that could be applied to the act of sharing digital data. None. Argumentum ad nauseam won't make it any more true, either.

>Don't consume the content if the industry bothers you that much. Buy your music directly from artists, go to the opera, read only public domain books, whatever, hell, even steal it, but don't pretend you're doing the writer or musician a favor.

How is this mutually exclusive? I enjoy going to concerts - which is how musicians can (and do) make money these days. I also have quite a lot of merchandise in the form of T-shirts. Services and services - both are business models with a future. Charging for exclusive access to a non-scarce resource, by contrast, isn't.

Yet every day new bands are signing up with this 'useless industry' trying to gain more exposure and money than they would without this 'useless industry'.

> Am I obliged to pay you? No. You demand to be payed for the costless act of copying your book. That's ridiculous.

This statement is utterly ridiculous. Just because something is easy to copy means it should be free? I can easily copy a 100$ bill on my Xerox machine at work, I should be able to do this without consequence? You must not be in the content creation industry and rely on it to pay your rent. The art, creativity and experience are where the value lies in a book, not in the 'copy', so yes I as a content creator do have a right to charge you to enjoy my art.

An common, but unproven claim, which also confuses content creation with distribution. It's the monopoly over the latter that I and many others object to. We are currently seeing the beginning of an era where sharing and remixing is giving rise to an unprecedented number of new art and culture. It has never been easier to produce content.

>It is a time-limited monopoly designed to promote progress in science and arts.

Though I'm from Europe, I'm quite familiar with that phrase, and I don't buy it. The problem with it is that it's from a time where the copyright industry was, to a certain degree, necessary for the dissemination of content. The founding fathers could have never even anticipated something like the Internet and technological advancements like BitTorrent and other file-sharing services, which pretty much invalidate a lot of the assumptions made when the constitution was written.

Also, as far as I remember, copyright is merely something congress is allowed to make laws about, not a constitutionally granted right.

"He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."

The difference is that the book still only exists as one copy that is transferred from one entity to another. This is fair use. That is the same reason it is ok to give/sell your cd to someone else. You have relinquished ownership of it and passed it to someone else. That is how the used goods market works. That does not include making copies of something to distribute. My argument about books is not invalid.

It was my mistake to use the word "creator" instead of "source". Yes, the creator generally does not benefit as such. That is between him and the label/distributor/etc. How noble of you to stick up for the underpaid content creator by not paying for the result of his work at all. I applaud you, sir.

For everything else you said... heard it before. Don't buy it. It is all just rationalizing the behavior.

I do love it when people wax poetic when it comes to piracy discussions online like this. By the above you mean the monumental achievement it is like having access to data such as the Human Genome Project, or online journals and data related to AIDS, cancer and other research correct?

Please don't try and state it is a human right to have free, immediate access to the latest Lady Gaga album and Game of Thrones for free.

[1]: Free as in speech, like with Free Software. Copyright and protection of Free Speech are mutually exclusive. You can't have one while having the other.