Access to Knowledge: YEA or NAY

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

I really don't understand why everyone keeps telling me to stay in the public domain, I have read the public domain and will continue to do so, but there are a lot of good books in the non-public domain, why should I be restricted from reading them simply because I do not wish to pay?

I really don't understand why you ask if I don't have enough possessions of my own. I have enough possessions of my own, and will continue to have them, but there are a lot of good possessions in your home, why should I be restricted from having them simply because I do not wish to pay?

[HansTWN]

Now we had our fun, time to stop arguing with the Giggletroll. It is long past his bed time, children get cranky when they don't get enough sleep.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

That sounds a bit circular to me, not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just a bit illogical.

You noticed that did you? See the thing is, when you start with an illogical assumption you can only get an illogical conclusion. As we started with your illogical assumption, any conclusions drawn had to have been illogical.

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Although we might say that since the universe has already experienced the learning, partitioning certain experiences away from itself (copyright) doesn't really make sense.

Again, if you start with the illogical assumption that the universe is learning through reading what we humans write then you will come up with an illogical conclusion.

Now I really am done.

[nogle]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

In Giggleton's world, everything is free. The farmer works for nothing, the factory worker works for nothing, the carpenter works for nothing, the author works for nothing. All so that Giggleton can do nothing. If everything is free, why should anyone work, and if no one works where is everything going to come from?

The Farm Commissar would have to use forced labor to keep the farms and factories running. But if that happens then Giggleton would probably wind up as a forced laborer too, unless he expects to be the Commissar.

I don't see why Giggleton's idea wouldn't work. It worked so well in USSR. They developed a socially and technologically advanced society that clearly won the cold war against the imperialistic, capitalistic, inventors of copyright in the west because they created an open and just society in which all people were free.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

That sounds a bit circular to me, not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just a bit illogical.

Although we might say that since the universe has already experienced the learning, partitioning certain experiences away from itself (copyright) doesn't really make sense.

Once accessed/uploaded, always available to anyone.

In other words, thank you for sharing.

Weren't you the one complaining just the other day that logic restricted thinking too much?

--
Bill

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by mrscoach

Gig, Do you make this up as you go? It sounds like it to me. The universe is a computer? What???? Why would we assume that?

Do you need help repairing your communication device to call for immediate pick-up? Maybe your they can bring your spacesuit with the nice wraparound arms.

Its actually not an unreasonable thing to think of the Universe as a computer. Lots of natural systems can be thought of in that way. Of course the only point of this computer is to compute its subsequent states from moment to moment. But since all human generated knowledge, and indeed us, would already exist in that computer, the argument totally fails to do anything to support your position.

Copyright is about human relations. It does not apply to any being, entity that does not on some level qualify. God, if he exists is free to know the content of books, whether it is under copyright or not. Jesus on the other hand will have to pay for the latest best seller (and lets hope he doesn't ask for royalties for the Bible ).

--
Bill

P.S. Very much hoping God has a sense of humor about this.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by nogle

I don't see why Giggleton's idea wouldn't work. It worked so well in USSR. They developed a socially and technologically advanced society that clearly won the cold war against the imperialistic, capitalistic, inventors of copyright in the west because they created an open and just society in which all people were free.

And the book commissars chose what books could be published, which saved readers from the burden of choice. But even in the USSR, you still had to pay. The selection of products was chosen by the commissars, and the prices were set by the commissars, but you still paid your rubles for your commissar approved books.

[nogle]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

And the book commissars chose what books could be published, which saved readers from the burden of choice. But even in the USSR, you still had to pay. The selection of products was chosen by the commissars, and the prices were set by the commissars, but you still paid your rubles for your commissar approved books.

The use of Rubles was an interim measure as they moved to a free and open society unhampered by ownership.

USSR remains the best example of the free and just society that can be created following Giggleton's fine framework.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Copyright is about human relations.

Yes it is, in that it restricts my relationship with those who use it to stop me from reading what they have wrote. Perhaps the copyright holder feels that it is in their interest to stop me from reading their text, perhaps until I have compensated them in some way that they feel is just, but who is to say what is just or not?

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

I really don't understand why you ask if I don't have enough possessions of my own. I have enough possessions of my own, and will continue to have them, but there are a lot of good possessions in your home, why should I be restricted from having them simply because I do not wish to pay?

I could of course just come to your house and take all of them back, in other words a zero sum game. Let's just be nice instead.

Originally Posted by nogle

The use of Rubles was an interim measure as they moved to a free and open society unhampered by ownership.

USSR remains the best example of the free and just society that can be created following Giggleton's fine framework.

If the USSR was truly free perhaps it would still exist...

[Freeshadow]

Giggles why don't you move to Cuba and apply as a book comissar there?

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

I could of course just come to your house and take all of them back, in other words a zero sum game. Let's just be nice instead.

Nah, Giggles. All you're doing is admitting that what you advocate is chaos. You're undermining your own argument.

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Yes it is, in that it restricts my relationship with those who use it to stop me from reading what they have wrote. Perhaps the copyright holder feels that it is in their interest to stop me from reading their text, perhaps until I have compensated them in some way that they feel is just, but who is to say what is just or not?

The copyright holder. Radical idea, I know.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Yes it is, in that it restricts my relationship with those who use it to stop me from reading what they have wrote. Perhaps the copyright holder feels that it is in their interest to stop me from reading their text, perhaps until I have compensated them in some way that they feel is just, but who is to say what is just or not?

You mean other than God? In terms of copyright, the creator of a work gets final say. If a man writes a poem for his wife, only he (and perhaps she) should get a say on whether or not anyone else gets to read it. If an author writes a novel he doesn't like, he should get to decide not to distribute it. If an author (or the publisher) wants to sell a work, they get to set the price. If enough potential readers decide the level of compensation is unjust, I assure you the price will drop.

The basic issue here is justice. No man should be required to give up compensation for the fruits of their labor. If they volunteer to give up those fruits, that is there choice, but it should never be forced on them.

--
Bill

[QuantumIguana]

Giggleton thinks that copyright gets in the way of his relationship with the author. But he wants to have a one-way relationship, where he can force a relationship on his terms. Relationships don't work that way. During the period of copyright, you can enter into a "relationship" with the author buy buying the book. You aren't forced to buy it, and the author isn't forced to give it away for nothing.

[ucfgrad93]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Giggleton thinks that copyright gets in the way of his relationship with the author. But he wants to have a one-way relationship, where he can force a relationship on his terms.

I was thinking it was more in line with this. Giggleton just wants to leech off of writers.