Libraries are great and authors get paid when you borrow the book. But we’re talking about piracy.
As for window washing vs knowledge production, not sure what you mean. Books have a price. Nobody’s decided they should be free either.
Libraries are great and authors get paid when you borrow the book. But we’re talking about piracy.
As for window washing vs knowledge production, not sure what you mean. Books have a price. Nobody’s decided they should be free either.
> authors get paid
In the standard system for libraries, the book is paid once.
That is "libraries" as in "we have societally decided to make published knowledge freely available".
> window washing vs knowledge production
Societies have not decided that window washing should be freely available - on the other side, they have decided that published knowledge be freely available (that is the meaning of the establishment of libraries).
It must differ by geography. In my country, authors are paid library revenue according to the number of times their books are borrowed. Perhaps as well as an upfront purchase.
Re: what “society has decided”, are you arguing that because libraries exist, no one may sell books for a price?
Seems extreme, not widely agreed by the population or the relevant parties, and likely to cause immense problems with the economics of knowledge production, but it’s certainly one point of view!
Similarly I argue that because open source code exists, software engineers must all work for free, and that because public parks exist, everyone’s home gardens are open to all.
> are you arguing that because libraries exist
No, no, no. In general, contextually to the topic of which the submission in part, I am showing that libraries were established through a societal decision that published knowledge shall be freely available. That means, if you want to consult a text, you are enabled to just go to a library and do it - the cost will be societal and contained.
Contextually to your post, and the expression «enjoying someone’s work without compensating them», I showed that the Principle establishing libraries implies you are not required to directly compensate authors to access their work.
And I told you that there is no similar principle regulating access to all other goods or services, such as "mowing your lawn" - society has not decided to bear the cost of the operation. It has, for the realm of accessing knowledge.
Do not misread.
Edit: maybe this will further help you to understand:
some societies have decided that health care services shall be easy to access, with collectively borne costs. Most societies have decided that published knowledge shall be easy to access, with collectively borne costs. Few societies have decided that having private lawns mowed shall be easy to access, with collectively borne costs.