Eminent Domain For Knowledge

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

As well as the spread of misinformation, since not everything printed is factual.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Fictional texts are knowledge too.

[Hellmark]

Even the fiction that claims to be fact?

[crich70]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Local networks within office buildings etc. already have a term - intranet and internet refers to the whole system which includes the WWW but is also Usenet, email and other things such as IRC so the whole "bait'n'switch only works by using terminology incorrectly anyway...

http://www.achingbrain.net/alex/internet-vs-internet

from above link: Basically, an internet is a network of (usually otherwise incompatible) networks. For example – if you were having a LAN party and you had a bunch of PCs and Macs running a TCP/IP network running alongside an AppleShare network, but all playing in the same game, however you manage it, you’d have an internet.

The Internet happens to be quite a well known and rather large scale implementation of an internet, but is unfortunately one which suffers from a rather poor choice of name.

An internet. The Internet. Simple, eh?

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

Even the fiction that claims to be fact?

But it is obviously not a fact since you have claimed that it is not. We can assume that the author of the fictional nonfiction believed their fictional nonfiction to be factual upon publishing.

Knowledge could exist inherently in such fictional nonfiction by a sort of process of elimination, holmesian style. Only by eliminating the improbable can we be left with the truth, as such we must considerable all conjectures equally at first read. Only until all books/thoughts are shared openly will we be able to determine what is worth contemplating further.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

We can assume that the author of the fictional nonfiction believed their fictional nonfiction to be factual upon publishing.

Knowledge could exist inherently in such fictional nonfiction by a sort of process of elimination, holmesian style.

Seriously Holmes, you're just pulling everyone's leg aren't you? I don't even think you drink your own koolaide. I know I'm not buying it for a second. You're good, but I can see through the cracks in your "Doug Henning," "Magic is an Illusion," "nothing/everything is valid," "hippy-dippy" facade.

[khalleron]

Once again, governments already support the spread of knowledge - they're called 'schools' and 'libraries'.

Giggleton is engaged in misdirection - that any sort of control is bad because it prevents the spread of knowledge, which is just plain wrong.

He's trying to justify copyright infringement - which is his right, but he's using arguments that are meaningless.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by khalleron

Once again, governments already support the spread of knowledge - they're called 'schools' and 'libraries'.

WHAT IS A LIBRARY BUT A REPOSITORY OF KNOWLEDGE? WHAT IS THE INTERNET BUT A LIBRARY ADMINISTRATED BY ALL USERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The problem I find with traditional libraries is that their gatekeepers are inadequate to control the flow of knowledge in the new era. We have access to all texts,(there are a few outliers but soon they will be digitized) The next step is to think about it what this means.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

I wish to open a library holding all books as is my right.

Let me fix that up for ya; "I wish to open a library holding all books as is my wish."

I say go for it. See how far you get. Don't worry... we'll come visit you on Thursdays and Saturdays.

WHAT IS THE INTERNET BUT A LIBRARY ADMINISTRATED BY ALL USERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No. Everyone knows the internet is tubes, silly.

[Penforhire]

Inadequate? There is already far more free material on the internet, sorry, Internet than is possible for you to read in your lifetime. You're buried in exactly what you're asking for.

Personally I think there's already more chaff than wheat but you seem to want the chaff just as much.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

Inadequate? There is already far more free material on the internet, sorry, Internet than is possible for you to read in your lifetime. You're buried in exactly what you're asking for.

Personally I think there's already more chaff than wheat but you seem to want the chaff just as much.

At the moment we can't have the wheat without the chaff. The chaff is a necessary condition for the wheat, I am talking about food production here but I do think it applies to knowledge generation as well.

I wouldn't be so quick to say that lifetimes will always be finite. All we have to do is imagine a time where our "consciousness" is capable of being digitized and then come back to the present and apply the models we have adopted in the future i.e. free sharing of all knowledge, to the present time.

[elcreative]

crich70, resorting to a link that has a 6 year-old date on it, hardly deals with a common thing in language... established usage and these days the established usage of internet by most people refers to the web and allied things such as email, usenet etc... it may not be precisely correct but then hoover isn't the only vacuum cleaner around but people know what you mean just like a lot of people think ereader = Kindle and other brands/words where estblished usage has developed to replace precise usage...

Originally Posted by crich70

http://www.achingbrain.net/alex/internet-vs-internet

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

But it is obviously not a fact since you have claimed that it is not. We can assume that the author of the fictional nonfiction believed their fictional nonfiction to be factual upon publishing.

Knowledge could exist inherently in such fictional nonfiction by a sort of process of elimination, holmesian style. Only by eliminating the improbable can we be left with the truth, as such we must considerable all conjectures equally at first read. Only until all books/thoughts are shared openly will we be able to determine what is worth contemplating further.

There are times when the author knows his info is false. Look at Million Little Pieces. He claimed that was his true life story, yet, none of it happened. Also, look at propaganda. Shit that makes you believe something that someone else wants you to believe, regardless of if there is truth to it. Why do they do it? Power, money, and/or fame.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

There are times when the author knows his info is false. Look at Million Little Pieces. He claimed that was his true life story, yet, none of it happened. Also, look at propaganda. Shit that makes you believe something that someone else wants you to believe, regardless of if there is truth to it. Why do they do it? Power, money, and/or fame.

What is truth? Why does anyone do anything?

Why someone writes something should not hold any weight in our decision to read what they have wrote, unless you plan on taking a trip down the censorship slope.

In the postmodern era, which we have recently gone past, readers of Million Little Pieces should have taken the text for what it was, an account of a life, without thinking about whether or not the things in the book actually happened to the author in "real life".

In the new era, where all narratives are neither fictional nor non-fictional but are understood to have been and always will be a blending of the two, readers will no longer question whether or not the events of a narrative actually happened. We will understand that thinking and doing are simply two points on a line, not to say that reality is linear.

There are things inside books that the author did not intend to place there, this is known. Things such as passages that alter reader's lives in ways that the "writer" has not known.

It is for these hidden meanings that I read, and maybe you as well? These passages of meaning could be anywhere and everywhere. And they are most likely unique to the "individual".

It should be left up to each reader to decide which texts they wish to appropriate for their own well being, and to decide which writers they wish to reward for this contribution to their being.

[khalleron]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

It should be left up to each reader to decide which texts they wish to appropriate for their own well being, and to decide which writers they wish to reward for this contribution to their being.

There's already a mechanism in place for this - it's called a bookstore.

The problem with you is, you want to 'appropriate' without 'rewarding'. And hey, for the content creators who *choose* to give their work away, go for it. But you don't have a 'right' to 'appropriate' someone else's work against their wishes.

As to libraries - there are no 'gatekeepers', not in the US. Anything that's been officially published is available through the Library of Congress and interlibrary loan, with very few exceptions. Just because your local library might not have it doesn't mean you can't get it.

Everything you say you want you can already have - without 'appropriating' it for yourself. Just go to the library and fill out a slip. Most libraries you can even do it online.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by khalleron

But you don't have a 'right' to 'appropriate' someone else's work against their wishes.

Everything you say you want you can already have - without 'appropriating' it for yourself. Just go to the library and fill out a slip. Most libraries you can even do it online.

How are you defining appropriation? I define it by copying profusely and sharing with all.

Your library scheme does sound very similar to this, except that with things such as the web we no longer need library slips and can use links and such.

We are talking of course about the texts that have not been officially published. Which most likely account for 99% of all texts, which means that it is highly probably that the best books have yet to be read. Before they can be read they have to be shared.