MobileRead Forums - View Single Post

PKFFW · 03-04-2012, 06:03 PM

Giggleton,

You seem to be advocating a Star Trek like Utopian where everyones material needs are catered for and thus everyone can do whatever they want to do and not worry about payment. Thus, writers will write, singers sing, engineers build new machines etc etc. As a Star Trek fan myself I would love to see this Utopian society come into existence.

However, at present this society does not exist. Yet you seem to be advocating the instigation of one aspect of this society without thought for the other equally important aspect. That is, you seem to want your desire to read any book you want taken care of without the requirement for the material need of the author to put food on their table to also have been taken care of.

All your suggestions thus far entail some sort of group payment from the society to ensure you get to read whatever you like. Higher taxes, a group consensus of what is good enough to be paid for, a book commission via internet 2.0 that will somehow ensure authors are compensated for their time and effort in writing. None of your suggestions actually entail the "free access to knowledge" but rather entail society paying for you to read whatever you like. In essence your suggestions are no different to the current method in which authors are paid for their work by people who pay for the books. The only difference in your model is that someone else pays for you to read the book.

Further, you have stated quite clearly in the past that you believe you have the right to read any book you want for free, to copy said book and to pass said copy on to anyone you like for free. You have further stated that you have indeed actually accessed and read books in the past without compensating the author of said book.

So if you yourself feel that you have the right to read any book you like for free and you have actually read many books without compensating the author, why do you keep suggesting that if everyone got free access to all books they would all be willing to pay the author? Are others more altruistic than yourself? Are they simply less greedy? What makes the rest of society so different to yourself that they would seemingly be willing to pay when you, the advocate of free access to all knowledge, are not willing to pay?

03-04-2012, 06:03 PM	#152
PKFFW Wizard Posts: 3,791 Karma: 33500000 Join Date: Dec 2008 Device: BeBook, Sony PRS-T1, Kobo H2O	Giggleton, You seem to be advocating a Star Trek like Utopian where everyones material needs are catered for and thus everyone can do whatever they want to do and not worry about payment. Thus, writers will write, singers sing, engineers build new machines etc etc. As a Star Trek fan myself I would love to see this Utopian society come into existence. However, at present this society does not exist. Yet you seem to be advocating the instigation of one aspect of this society without thought for the other equally important aspect. That is, you seem to want your desire to read any book you want taken care of without the requirement for the material need of the author to put food on their table to also have been taken care of. All your suggestions thus far entail some sort of group payment from the society to ensure you get to read whatever you like. Higher taxes, a group consensus of what is good enough to be paid for, a book commission via internet 2.0 that will somehow ensure authors are compensated for their time and effort in writing. None of your suggestions actually entail the "free access to knowledge" but rather entail society paying for you to read whatever you like. In essence your suggestions are no different to the current method in which authors are paid for their work by people who pay for the books. The only difference in your model is that someone else pays for you to read the book. Further, you have stated quite clearly in the past that you believe you have the right to read any book you want for free, to copy said book and to pass said copy on to anyone you like for free. You have further stated that you have indeed actually accessed and read books in the past without compensating the author of said book. So if you yourself feel that you have the right to read any book you like for free and you have actually read many books without compensating the author, why do you keep suggesting that if everyone got free access to all books they would all be willing to pay the author? Are others more altruistic than yourself? Are they simply less greedy? What makes the rest of society so different to yourself that they would seemingly be willing to pay when you, the advocate of free access to all knowledge, are not willing to pay?