Quote:
Originally Posted by PKFFW
But we do know he wouldn't back up his words with actions since he has already shown he doesn't. As has been mentioned elsewhere, there is more literature of all sorts available for free than Giggles could possibly read in his entire life yet he chooses not to read that. Furthermore he admits to having not paid for works that have been important to him or taught his something etc. Hence his continued spouting on about the important works and authors being supported by some group think via internet 2.0 is complete BS when it comes to his personal support.
|
I just don't see the point of having a public and a non public domain. Why limit ourselves? That whole, "But there won't be any incentive to write!" is just a straw man or something, for those who are into that sort of logical thing.
We could have a poll with two options, would you pay for content that is available for free, if all proceeds went to the creator. I feel that some of us would pay some of the time, and that should be more than enough.
Would it be ok for a computer to read every available work if the computer was capable of learning? Yes or No????
I recently downloaded a book but the format was not conducive to being scanned so I did not read it. Luckily I picked up a copy of the same book from my local library and have been reading the paper version. I already know that this book contains much useful information and is going to be extremely helpful for the future. Since I have already read the paper version would it be allright for me to reread the electronic version? Or is all this academic to simply sending some compensation towards the creators if you are capable of sending compensation? In other words, what need of copyright?