Quote:
Originally Posted by Taylor514ce
There are valid reasons for wanting to have a site, and not wanting to have portions of that site monetized and served up out of a 3rd party's server.
|
Certainly. But I think the majority of people who post content don't object to their content being indexed, so it makes more sense for those who do object to use robots.txt.
I may be mistaken about this, but I think "pay for search" services were tried, back in the day, and failed. Most people are not willing to pay to search content. I know I'm not. And many people can't afford, or are unwilling, to pay for indexing. I don't like advertising, but I don't see another likely alternative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kajti
I'm cheap, lazy, arrogant. I read some old classic or public domain stuff, some new Creative Commons stuff, but mostly OCR'd copywronged novels I download. Mostly science fiction, with some nonfiction, mystery, and fantasy as leavening. But if merely acknowledging the elephant in the room makes people uncomfortable, I'll let this nym die, and if I post again, it will be as a nicely-censored persona that says all the acceptable things, no matter how far from reality....
|
It is not the acknowledgment of the elephant in the room that is at issue. Bragging about how you feed the elephant does rub many people the wrong way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tompe
Modify the example to borrow a book from a friend then so my point is kept. And the point was that things that on the surface sounds reasonable often is not correct when analyzed.
For example if you think an utilitaristic moral system is the most reasonable then it might be optimal if a certain percentage people download books from darknet and then talks enthusiastically about the book to their friends who buy them since this could increase the total utility.
|
When you borrow a book from a friend, the friend has paid for the book. Quite possibly you are also paying for books and loaning them to your friend, as well, or providing some other compensatory value to your friend as part of your friendship. If I recall correctly, publishers estimate that each physical book gets read by 4-10 people. Presumably they take that into account in the price of the book and the compensation to the author, even if only tacitly. The problem with downloads is that circulation is several orders of magnitude higher than paper circulation is ever likely to be. This completely unbalances the model.
Saying "if something is worth reading, it's worth paying for" is an oversimplification, but I still think it is more true than not.