Internet and Libraries: A Provocative Analogy

It is entirely acceptable and common practice to go to a local library and borrow a book (or a movie, audio recording or video game in modern libraries) and have full access to it and even take it home without paying anything. It is common practice for many libraries to allow people to borrow books via the traditional postal service. The only expense involved is the postage fees. Why would that be different from legally allowing us to skip the 2 weeks wait for the book to arrive and browse it instantly through the Internet? Furthermore, it is also common practice for libraries to have agreements with other libraries to offer Interlibrary loans that allow its users to request books from other libraries. In this case, I am granted access to content that neither I nor my library have paid for. Libraries are perceived by us as social services and providers of universal access to content and knowledge. Why can’t the Internet be perceived as such? Why is it that we can go to a library and have access there to any content and not have access to it from the Internet? Since I do not pay for content in either cases, why is one wrong and the other not? Because of a regulatory glitch or outdated legislation, and unadjusted market or is it a technological thing? The only valid argument would be that authors are not properly compensated. And that is where we need to focus. Not in condemning citizens accessing content efficiently, but in creating flexible regulatory frameworks that enable the creation of alternative compensation methods that benefit content creators and innovators on a large scale.