Libraries: The Original File Sharing Networks

It's a given that:

1. Theft is bad.
2. Benefiting from someone else's labor without compensating them, when they require compensation to enjoy the fruits of their labor, is theft.
3. File sharing copyrighted material is theft/wrong because the creators of the content are not compensated for their labor.

File sharing is a big topic these days. It's clearly illegal and morally repugnant to steal, and file sharing is stealing. But is there a fine line between borrowing and stealing? Let's look at Libraries. Libraries let people borrow things...books, videos, dvd's, CD's. The library typically buys a book, and then loans it out to many people. Lets take a look at a hypothetical example:

Library buys (10) copies of Dan Brown's "Da Vinci Code". They compensate the author/publisher $199.50 ($19.95 X 10 copies).
They loan the book out for 2 week time periods.
Over the course of the year, the book could be loaned out 260 times (52 weeks, 2 week loan periods, 10 books).
Thus, each book is loaned out 26 times. If we assume at 80% of the loans are to different people (some will renew their loan), then 208 people enjoyed Dan Brown's book, without paying him a cent.
This means Dan Brown has lost an estimated $3,950 in potential sales ($4,149.60 - $199.50).
And this is just one library in one year. The book will undoubtedly last several years, and continue to siphon off Dan Brown's potential profits. Where is the outcry? Where are the lawsuits? And why isn't anyone moving to shut these file sharing networks down?

Some may claim that music is different. It's different because a person might enjoy it for years, rather than a book, which someone might enjoy for only a week or two. But is that really a valid claim? Is the duration of the enjoyment somehow relevant in making the determination of what is and isn't permissible? Consider an album that costs $20 and it's one that will be enjoyed for years. Is it more of a crime to walk into the store and steal the $20 cd than it is for me to sneak out of a restaurant on a $20 tab? I enjoyed the restaurant's food for only a few minutes. The CD will be enjoyed for years. Which is the greater crime? The answer is clearly that they are equal crimes. The reason is that the creator of the product was not compensated for my use/enjoyment, regardless of how long it was enjoyed. Imagine a car thief claiming that their crime is mitigated because they only drove the car 'for a few hours’.

Consider the example of the travel guide. Travel guides are useful, usually for a short duration (that of your trip). So the two week check-out period is usually more than enough for your purposes. I check out travel guides from the library as opposed to buying them. Why would I buy a $20 travel guide, when I can borrow it from the library and use it to it's fullest potential FOR FREE! Fodor's/Frommers/Etc have lost lots of money from me over the years, and the library has enabled this to happen. Are they happy about it? It's unclear. Have they been harmed economically? Clearly. I have also used language courses from the library. I have consumed every last drop of intellectual property they had to offer. I retain the information they imparted to me to this very day. Courses costing hundreds of dollars. And I compensated them nothing.

Should I feel guilty?

I'm wondering why someone like Netflix hasn't started NetTunes yet (somone's already registered it). They would be able to let people borrow CD's just like they do DVD's indefinitely for a monthly fee. Wonder if that would upset anyone....