I should have specified the library thing.. I’ll update the post later, but in the meantime I’ll share with you my reasons against going that route.

1) The only argument against continuing to download them illegally is the "the authors need to get a cut" one. Acquiring them from the library and downloading them illegally off the internet has exactly the same net result, except that it adds unneccessary complexities like visiting the library, choosing from the stock on hand (or waiting till one I want gets returned) and an additional trip to the library. I may as well just "borrow" it from my multitude of generous P2P friends instead of all the hassle of borrowing it from the library.

2) I don’t believe that public libraries are a good or effective use of taxpayer dollars. It’s pretty hard to argue that libraries aren’t valuable, I’m just not sure I want the government (or my money) involved in the managing of them. The ones around here are constantly begging for more tax money rather than changing the way they do things, and people keep willingly giving it to them. I don’t want to pay for it, so I don’t go to the library so as to lessen the impact on them so they won’t need as much money.

Futile, but principled… That about sums me up.

I realize that your simile is more illustrative rather than convincemental (feel free to use this new word… I quite like it), but I feel I need to point out a flaw I see with it.

The big problem with your simile is that by downloading the audiobook over the internet, I’m not preventing anyone else from eating it like I would be by stealing food from Bennigans.

Surely that food cost Bennigans something to prepare, and by not paying for it I’ve just cost them some money. If I were instead to eat at the homeless shelter, Bennigans wouldn’t be affected, but if I stole from Bennigans they would.

Now compare that with the library. If I get a book there, the producer of the content (Bennigans) gets nothing. If I instead get it off the internet, the producer is still getting nothing — while the copy at the library is available for someone else to check out. (And Bennigans still gets nothing.)

Regardless of which source I get it from, Bennigans isn’t suffering because of it.

For me the legalities of it all is null… I’m seeking a way to consume the content I want while being assured that the content producer is rewarded for it.

Also, I’m trying to use the power of capitalism to reward companies that aren’t dealing in crippled, restricted content. (ie, not apple/audible)

Anyway, the very act of me trying to seek out such a service should be proof enough that my libertarian views aren’t causing me to break the law.

The private libraries idea is a good one, but it won’t do much to help reward the content producers.

Also, I’m really darn lazy; I like the idea of just being sent them with no extra effort on my part. Seeking out libraries would be an extra hassle :)

I know authors get the money for the intial purchase, but that’s the same for most of the stuff I’m downloading off the net as well. Someone bought it, just not me.

I assume libraries are paying the cover price, and not paying the "you’re going to be renting this out" price that Blockbuster, for instance, has to pay, right?

As for exposure: the Lewis Black biography I downloaded last week was unknown to me until I found it while browsing through a torrent site. I know for sure that there were 17 people who I got it from, and another 35 who were in turn getting it from me. I doubt sincerely that any library, whether it be public or private, could ever match that amount of exposure in just the matter of hours that I was involved.

I’m not against libraries per se, just against government-managed, publicly-funded ones. I think the private sector could do a lot better job of it (and be able to lock pervs out of the internet as well without having those pesky "constitutional rights" get in the way. It’s win/win.)

I’m also not trying to advocate the illegal filesharing, just trying to illustrate that what’s being accomplished with it is exactly the same as what libraries are accomplishing — just on a scale the libraries can only dream of having the funding to be able to provide. I’m not sure that the laws that are currently in place are serving the ends they’re supposed to be serving. And even if they are, I think they ought to be applicable to libraries and other methods of getting the content that aren’t compensating the creators as well.

I do bet, though, that if they could afford it, they’d love to be able to enable 17 people to have the one book checked out at once.

Also: don’t get me started on the commercial radio "model," that’s a can of worms I’d rather not open quite yet :)

In any case, "paying the artists" isn’t really the crux of my desire, it’s just the rationale for the laws in question. I’m only going with that because that’s supposedly why it’s wrong to download it off the internet in the first place. If that’s the case, then I want to do what’s the opposite of that, thus wanting to ensure that artists get a cut.