Access to Knowledge: YEA or NAY

[Giggleton]

I am concerned about education, because it does seem wrong on so many levels. Yes there is a massive global public domain, but that does not mean the book anyone might need at any specific point in time or space is currently within the domain.

Why should we have to lobby for things like access to texts?

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Why not simply give them access to the entire library and raise their parent's property taxes a bit?

I have a radical new idea for you. Instead of raising taxes and creating another big brother agency that will distribute funds to authors according to who is on the favorites list of those who are in power at the moment --- why not pay authors directly and thereby support those we think are "worthy"?

I know it is a mind boggling concept, a system where we all get to vote directly for our personal favorites by buying their books (new or second hand) or checking them out from a library. Maybe I am too far ahead of our time for you to comprehend this idea.

[speakingtohe]

I am concerned about education, because it does seem wrong on so many levels. Yes there is a massive global public domain, but that does not mean the book anyone might need at any specific point in time or space is currently within the domain.

Why should we have to lobby for things like access to texts?

Sorry if you misunderstood me. I was trying to say that what you wrote (that I quoted) seemed wrong on so any levels (to me). I actually think education is good.

Helen

[Freeshadow]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Should I be limited in my access to literature because I have taken some sort of poverty vow, or I live on a remote hilltop somewhere with nothing but a small hut and an ereader with a decent 3G connection?

YES, you should be limited.

While knowledge is of doubtless importance, and I'd support its distribution for free (altough as mentioned before, not without control, since it contains dangerous parts. As already said I won't like every kid to be easily enabled to mix up acids, poisons or incendiaries.) entertainment is NOT of the same importance but a luxury.

Access to knowledge has been limited far more in the past, than it is now. In former times you had to find a master to tell you and join the respective guild to gain access to even the most basics of lores and crafts.
Both being a costly affair. Nowdays it is sufficient to hack "+($_craft OR $_lore) +(howto OR 101)" in the search engine of your choice to get at least the basics for free.

As far as entertainment is concerned, it has always been a luxury and was only made available for free if some leaders were interested to keep the masses happy and calm. Even then it wasn't every kind of entertainment but the sort the guys on top chose as being mostly mass-effective.
'panem et circenses' should ring a bell here.

Since tastes (luckily) differ the idea of a centrally decided sponsoring is :facepalm: as has already been discussed. (ad nauseam)

To put it in a nutshell:
1.) Don't ask about knowledge if you mean entertainment.
2.) If you want entertainment for free... put your hands in your pants.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Why not simply give them access to the entire library and raise their parent's property taxes a bit?

In a democracy? Whether or not property taxes should pay for books lots of people find disgusting or dangerous will be a perpetual political football. Even if the kind of politicians you may favor gain office, they won't always win, and when they do, they'll compromise. As a result, your system is not going to lead to as wide a variety of books as you can buy with MasterCard, VISA, or PayPal.

It's true that we already have public libraries, and, in most places, controversies over what books they stock are muted. But your idea seems specifically designed to widen the range of publicly provided reading material, and thus widen such controversies.

Originally Posted by Giggleton

I am concerned about education, because it does seem wrong on so many levels. Yes there is a massive global public domain, but that does not mean the book anyone might need at any specific point in time or space is currently within the domain.

There are many ways to deal with this. There are libraries to share knowledge without violating copyright law. Schools reuse materials in order to reduce costs without violating copyright law. Many people will happily publish materials without directly charging for it or even receiving any compensation for it (e.g. advertising supported, creative commons licensed, etc.). Even though it isn't popular in many nations, many governments and humanitarian organizations will sponsor the development of books for education.

There is very little preventing you from accessing knowledge. True, you are prevented from accessing knowledge in a certain form (e.g. a particular book) -- but that is an entirely different issue.

[QuantumIguana]

I do want the literature that is currently uploaded and given away for "free" by its "creator". I also want to be able to access all literature... Should I be limited in my access to literature because I have taken some sort of poverty vow, or I live on a remote hilltop somewhere with nothing but a small hut and an ereader with a decent 3G connection?

Let us go through this again. You want literature that isn't created by the author to make a living, but just as a hobby. Yet that literature is already available, but you don't want it. You want the literature that people spend all day working on, yet you don't want them to get paid. Why not? Why do you demand that authors take a vow of poverty? And why do you put "creator" in quotes? That seems to imply that they actually didn't create anything.

Yes, the speed of delivery has nothing to do with making books free, the freedom of books will see to that.

You went on a rant of considerable length about how the speed of delivery implied books should be free, now you say it isn't. And you're just being circular with by saying making books free will make books free.

Time is relative to the observer, any copyright could be called perpetual if you only have a certain amount of time. Which we all do...??

If we were traveling at a significant fraction of the speed of light, then time would be relative. But the length of time you have doesn't make copyright perpetual. We can debate how long is too long, but it is false that copyright of any length at all can be seen as perpetual.

The government will give out cheap disposable ereaders to students. What are they going to be reading? Government approved educational materials?

Handing out free e-readers in no way implies making all books free, any more than having eyes implies that all paper books should be free. The students could choose from millions of public domain books, they could read library books, they could purchase books. Or... they could read their textbooks. And where are these cheap disposable readers that you propose?

The idea of recommendations/Commissar is not fatally flawed but it is not perfect, no recommendation system will ever be, there are simply too many unknowns to the mind.

It is fatally flawed. The Commissar does not know better than me. I know what books I want, when I find a book I want, I buy it. I thus decide what authors I will reward. I am the only expert in the world on what I want to read. You were never talking about "recommendations", the entire point of the committees you proposed was to decide what authors get paid.

Logic isn't the be all end all to the universe you know

Yes, it is. Illogic is deadly.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

I am concerned about education, because it does seem wrong on so many levels. Yes there is a massive global public domain, but that does not mean the book anyone might need at any specific point in time or space is currently within the domain.

Why should we have to lobby for things like access to texts?

Sigh... Nothing will guarantee that the book you might need is in the public domain. Before a book can exist in the public domain, it has to exist first, and has to be published in some fashion.

Copyright, by allowing authors and publishers to profit on the books they publish provides an incentive for the author to both write and publish their work (and in the case of many authors, the means by which they can write many more books).

As it is now, the vast majority of books in copyright can be obtained for relatively little money (buy two ebook novels a week, and you are still below the cost of cable; try to read half your books from the public domain and save even more!). I would prefer pay for the books I need because it helps ensure that the books I need will exist!

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Sorry if you misunderstood me. I was trying to say that what you wrote (that I quoted) seemed wrong on so any levels (to me). I actually think education is good.

Helen

If I did decide to open a school, do you think it would be ok if I downloaded copyrighted educational materials to give to the students? I probably wouldn't be able to pay the authors, or charge the students. I think it would be ok, but I am slightly worried that Internet 2.0 is going to be locked down. Of course the locks can always be broken but it's such a waste of time and resources isn't it?

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

And why do you put "creator" in quotes? That seems to imply that they actually didn't create anything.

I tend to put ambiguous words in quotes to highlight the fact that they are ambiguous. I do not believe in the disconnected individual, therefore a solitary artist cannot exist, therefore no one person can ever really create anything.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

If I did decide to open a school, do you think it would be ok if I downloaded copyrighted educational materials to give to the students? I probably wouldn't be able to pay the authors, or charge the students. I think it would be ok, but I am slightly worried that Internet 2.0 is going to be locked down. Of course the locks can always be broken but it's such a waste of time and resources isn't it?

No, it's not OK to download copyrighted educational materials.

I tend to put ambiguous words in quotes to highlight the fact that they are ambiguous. I do not believe in the disconnected individual, therefore a solitary artist cannot exist, therefore no one person can ever really create anything.

There's nothing ambiguous about it. Even if there is no such thing as a solitary artist (whatever in the world that means) it does NOT follow that no one creates anything.

[NightGeometry]

Does anyone else think G is a publisher shill?

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

No, it's not OK to download copyrighted educational materials.

There's nothing ambiguous about it. Even if there is no such thing as a solitary artist (whatever in the world that means) it does NOT follow that no one creates anything.

Well we will just have to agree to disagree then. I will download whatever i feel like downloading and you will say that it is wrong to do so? Or,

Don't think about what I can't do, think about what YOU can!!

But getting to something more interesting, about artists and creation. I'm not sure what all this following business is about but it sounds a bit like logic, a system of thinking created by beings from within the system it is supposed to describe. How can logic not be flawed?

Either way, once you get outside the universe and start to look in, you will see that everything just is.. no creation at all.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Well we will just have to agree to disagree then. I will download whatever i feel like downloading and you will say that it is wrong to do so?

I agree to so such thing. That you download what you feel like downloading doesn't mean that you are justified in doing so.

But getting to something more interesting, about artists and creation. I'm not sure what all this following business is about but it sounds a bit like logic, a system of thinking created by beings from within the system it is supposed to describe. How can logic not be flawed?

Either way, once you get outside the universe and start to look in, you will see that everything just is.. no creation at all.

Neither of us have been outside of the universe, so we can't confirm that wild speculation. Certainly from within the universe, where we actually live, people create things. If the author didn't create it, who did?

Logic works, illogic doesn't.

[DiapDealer]

Either way, once you get outside the universe and start to look in, you will see that everything just is.. no creation at all.

I think I might have just peed a little.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

I agree to so such thing. That you download what you feel like downloading doesn't mean that you are justified in doing so.

Neither of us have been outside of the universe, so we can't confirm that wild speculation. Certainly from within the universe, where we actually live, people create things. If the author didn't create it, who did?

Logic works, illogic doesn't.

What is this us "you" speak of? Is it not the universe itself? I might think that things are seen with different perspectives from time to time, but I doubt very much that anything besides everything has ever been created.

Yes it is easy for someone to say, "I wrote that please pay me if you read it", but it is just as easy for someone else to say "Everything that has been, is, or will ever be written is already so." Both views can be considered correct yes? Where is logic?